c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 289 of course to a great extent would depend on what matters and terms the labour court would consider as regulated in the collective agreements. As early as the first year of its activities, the court took a stand concerning the scope and legal basis of the workers’ duty of obedience and consequently the employer’s right to change the terms of work. In decision 1929:29, which was the starting point for this study, the court concluded that the paper mill workers at the paper mill at Koppom inVärmland had a duty to perform the building work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the paper mill agreement. The employer had the right to change tasks without negotiating about wages.This prerogative was considered to be a natural, hidden term of each collective agreement, which in turn meant that the employees were not allowed to take industrial actions in the dispute.The source of law for this conclusion by the labour court was the “29/29 principle”, according to which the collective agreement “must be considered to imply” that a manual worker was obliged to perform all tasks on behalf of the employer that had a natural connection with the activities of the employer, provided that the tasks lay within the limits of the worker’s occupational and personal qualifications.592 The first part of the 29/29 principle, concerning the “natural” connection with the employer’s activity, was the most important one. It attached decisive importance to organisation on the part of the employers and how the nationwide collective agreements were constructed.593 On the one hand, this part has been understood as a restriction of the duty of obedience to such tasks in 592 Schmidt, F 1981, p. 299;Victorin 1986; Sigeman 1978, pp. 179-212; Malmberg 1997, pp. 383-385. 593 Schmidt, F 1957, pp. 220-221. 9. 8 the labour court as the make r of a se parate contract of employment 1929-1934
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=