upon, on request do the work agreed upon with care, and keep safe of property that had possibly been entrusted to him. The employer was obligated to pay wages, but also to fulfil the necessary requisites for the worker’s health. For those cases when the worker became ill due to his or her own person, or without either party being responsible, Ekeberg felt that length of service should be taken into account so that after a long period of employment, the employer should observe a certain, reasonable period of dismissal. Ekeberg noted that the service contract was regulated by certain public, protective legislation, but argued that there was a great lack of applicable private law rules. He referred to the fact that the theories of the Swedish legal system were built on a foundation of Roman law,“a very individualistic system, which did not offer any scope for this collective legal phenomenon”. Even if the general basic principle was freedom of contract, Ekeberg taught his students at Stockholm’s University College, this did not extend to the individual service contract.This was regulated by the rules that applied to collective agreements, which had the same value as legislation and bound the individual members of the contracting organisations, including the individual employers and employees.499 Both the demands for the binding force on the individual members and for mandatory arbitration were aimed at promoting the collective agreements as instruments of an obligation for industrial peace. All the authors except Nordling made statements about the worker’s duty of obedience in the service contract. Björling and Ekeberg referred somewhat meaninglessly that it corresponded to what had been agreed upon. Chydenius, Hasselrot and Undén claimed without doubt that the obligation was far-reaching. Undén especially emphasised the worker’s subordination and p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 246 The doctrine concluded 499 Ekeberg 1925, pp. 221-226, 248-249.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=