the legally trained jurists had implanted in them a certain view of society that made them see questions of disputes from the employers’ point of view.588 After a long debate, the second chamber finally accepted the controversial bills on collective agreements and the labour court. The vote was 117 for and106 against. Certain members, however, did not want to end the debate. Arthur Engberg requested the floor in order to register his dissent in the record against “the despicable action that had been committed against Sweden’s working class”. Representatives Fabian Månsson and Nilsson from Örebro agreed with Engberg’s statement.589 The examined material from1926-28 shows that the employers, the Conservatives and the Liberals maintained the need for stiff sanctions for violations of collective agreements, and considered it a general interest to limit the parties’ right to resort to industrial actions, not least the workers’ self-assumed “liberty of action” to strike in the case of agreement disputes. Even if it was admitted that the boundary between disputes of interest and legal disputes was unclear, it was demanded that there be an obligation for industrial peace in legal disputes. Custom would be transformed into applicable law and would constitute an important point of departure to assess what was natural and suitable. If the workers did not accept section 23, then they could get a clause included in the collective agreement to prevent the misuse of this section. The question concerning section 23 was of central importance for the opposition to the 1928 legislation from the Social Democrats and LO. Both these bodies were opposed to the introduction of mandatory arbitration in legal disputes dealing with p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 286 9. 6. 4 the de bate of 1926-28 summari sed 588 MAK 1928:450 (Spångberg, Herou, J P Dahlén, Samuelsson); AK 1928:38, p. 43 (Spångberg). 589 AK1928:38, pp. 128-129.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=