as its predecessor, and thus it appeared as a corporate arbitration board, composed of seven persons, the president and two other members were to be picked from persons who could not be considered as representing the interests of either party. Of these three impartial members, two should be “knowledgeable in the law and experienced in the tasks of being a judge”544. The third person should have special insights into working life and its questions regarding contracts. Of the remaining four, two were to be appointed on the proposal of the Swedish Employers’ Confederation and two on the proposal of the SwedishTrade Union Confederation.545 The arguments for and against a legal regulation of the workers duty of obedience can be studied in the 1927 draft, the opinions submitted by organisations and public authorities in 1927, the government’s bill of 1928 and printed reports from the parliamentary debate in 1928. Many contentious questions had previously been debated in the parliaments of 1910 and 1911, following the proposal of 1916 of the National Board of Heath and Welfare and the proposals on industrial democracy of 1923-24. We will focus here on the discussion about the relationship between “the nature of things” and the value of custom as a source of law, especially the importance of the fact that section 23 was found in many collective agreements.We will also pay attention to what extent legislation should intervene in an area that up until that time had been regulated by collective agreements, and whether the professional jurists of the labour court could be expected to be impartial. In the last-mentioned question, a partially new ingredient appeared in the parliament of 1928 that is of especial importance p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 268 9. 6. 1 the de bate be fore the 1928 leg i slat ion. the source s 544 Sw. “lagkunniga och i domarevärv erfarna”. 545 Göransson 1988, pp. 206-209.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=