c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 281 other contracts since section 23 was been inserted in collective agreements as a result of the employers’ threats to resort to forcible means and that the workers in reality found themselves at a disadvantage. He therefore argued against the principle that “agreements should be held” and stated that people found themselves in a new area where ordinary contractual principles did not apply.572 The Communists’ MauritzVästberg and Jonas Dahlén as well emphasised the fact that the act would legalise the collective agreements, which were the result of a bitter conflict between opposing interests, in which the stronger party had set the conditions. Among these conditions was section 23 that gave the employer a sovereign right to direct and distribute work and engage and dismiss workers, which in turn entailed the power to persecute and harass.573 A long line of representatives noted that it was impossible to draw a clear boundary between the protected legal disputes and disputes of interest, something that was also admitted by Pettersson, the minister of health and welfare, and Hjalmar von Sydow. The critics saw a clear risk that legislation would contribute to erasing the boundary, so that the labour court’s examination would gradually even apply to disputes of interest.574 The Social Democrats Nils Törnkvist from Bjuv and Oskar Hagman argued that the existence of section23 combined with the act’s rules regarding industrial peace in disputes of interpretation risked giving the employer the right to change working conditions, but at the same time removed the possibility of the worker to refuse to perform tasks, despite the fact that the change Drawing a boundary around protected legal disputes? 572 FK1928:35, p. 115. 573 AK1928:38, pp. 66, 71-75. 574 MFK1928:282; MAK1928:451; AK1928:13, p. 25 (Engberg); AK1928:35, pp. 9899 (Linder); AK1928:38, p. 94 (Samuelsson).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=