What Huss, Elmquist and Lindhagen implied here was not only a method to look for hidden terms that could be protected by an obligation of industrial peace. The legal-dogmatic method moreover was put in immediate connection with the legal-political ambition to limit industrial actions on the Swedish labour market as much as possible. As has been mentioned, the experts’ proposal was submitted for opinion in 1927 to a large number of public authorities and the employers’ and the workers’ organisations.The employers’ in the main supported the proposal, while the workers’ organisations opposed the proposals being elevated into a legislative act. The Swedish Employers’ Confederation argued that it was unworthy a society based on law and a regulated law state that legal disputes were decided by the power of the strong party and not by a court. It was therefore necessary to establish a special court where the greatest competence and knowledge could be concentrated. A large number of the conflicts that were classified as disputes of interest were in fact legal disputes; it was just that the proper rubric had not been given to the cause of conflict.551 The opinion submitted by the Central Association for Social Work (Centralförbundet för Social Arbete, CSA) is of special interest. It stated that the question whether a certain condition was regulated or not in a collective agreement should be decided in a legal manner and not as now by a test of strength between p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 272 550 Utkast 1927, p. 21. section 4. 551 Prop. 1928:39, pp. 37-40. “It is obvious that the circumstance that a certain question is not dealt with in the agreement does not in itself constitute evidence that the same question is not regulated in the agreement. Often the silence of the contract on this point is considered to be decisive. To be sure, it would be especially desirable taking into account industrial peace that a prohibition could be issued even against resorting to industrial action during the period of the agreement in a dispute dealing with a question that has not be solved in the contract. Such a prohibition would also be in good agreement with the nature of the collective agreement as an instrument of industrial peace. However, it is most likely not possible at present to implement regulations for this aim.”550
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=