The substance of Pettersson’s line of reasoning seems to have been that “natural rights” could exist as hidden terms without having been taken up during the negotiations, and that these rights were protected by the obligation for industrial peace as long as they had not been expressly omitted in the agreement. If one of the parties claimed that he had a right pursuant to the contract and the other party contested this, then the idea was that the labour court would decide if the right existed or not. If the court decided that the right existed, the act’s prohibition against a cessation of work due to the dispute applied.The court was to supplement the act with a reasonable interpretation, and in doing so,“the nature of things” and praxis in collective agreements were obviously to be ascribed great importance. Pettersson’s high estimation of contractual praxis can be seen especially clearly in his reply to the fears of LO and the Social Democratic Party that the proposed legislation would solidify the legal situation to the existing power positions. Pettersson answered that if the workers considered that section 23 was dangerous, it would be wise for them to insert a corrective in the agreements to see to it that the section was not misused.561 The government’s previously mentioned demand for state intervention thus resulted in the party that felt itself to be injured being able to go to court to get his rights met with the help of state’s means of force.There were models abroad. In the bill, it was noted that several civilised countries - Germany, Norway and Denmark - had established special bodies to solve labour disputes. Criticism of jurists for being impartial was refuted as unfair since the statistics from the Central Arbitration Board showed that both parties had won about an equal number of cases.562 p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 276 561 FK1928:38, pp. 9-20, 88. 562 Prop. 1928:39, pp. 49-50.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=