the actual activities that are included in the collective agreement for the worker in question. On the other hand, this part can be seen as an expansion of the obligation to work in relation to the activity that an employer actually conducts at a given point in time.This gave the employer a great possibility to unilaterally change the obligations of the employee as long as they were within the “connection area” of the collective agreement in force.The criterion,“natural connection”, therefore, was a general clause intended to expand the contents of the agreement and was later applied in case law in an extensive spirit. The second part restricted the duty of obedience with reference to the worker’s present position or professional competence. This can lead one’s thoughts not only to the old guild legislation regarding privileged occupations but also to section15 part 3 of the Statute on Freedom of Trade of 1864 that stated that a worker “may not without expressed consent” be used for other tasks or assignments than belong to that person’s occupation.As we have seen, the government bills of 1901 and 1910 contained similar restrictions. However, the lawmaking by the labour court played down the importance of this restriction. After 1929, the court would draw the boundary far away by stating that this part did not have “any real independent importance” and that it aimed preferentially at an employee not being obligated to submit to a thorough re-education in order to be used for new tasks.594This view is far removed from seeing the employee as the practitioner of a protected profession. During 1929-34 the labour court laid down other general legal principles of importance for employment relationships. In case 1932:100, the question was dealt with whether an employer had the right to freely dismiss a worker.As has been mentioned, on the one hand that right had been stated in section23 of the rules of the Swedish Employers’Confederation from1905, the December p a r t i v, c h a p t e r 9 290 594 AD 1944:45. Schmidt, F 1957, pp. 220-222; Geijer & Schmidt 1958, pp. 308-309; Schmidt, F 1959, pp. 36, 204; Svensäter 1991, pp. 42-45.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=