However, this doctrine did not gain legal significance until the trade unions were integrated into the public system by having been given representation in the labour court. The commission of 1927 as well as the bill of 1928 provided ingredients for a method on natural rights which were protected by a peace obligation.Against this background, the labour court’s controversial decisions are not at all confusing. From1929, the labour court followed preparatory works, which had been prepared by the court’s president himself, to prescribe that each collective agreement included the section 23 prerogatives, even if they were not explicitly regulated. The labour court’s elaboration of hidden terms supplied the actors on the labour market with guidelines for the shaping of contracts.At the same time it influenced the scope of the parties’ industrial peace obligation, by transferring disputes of interest to legal disputes, which must not be matters of industrial actions. In this selective process, the master’s open-ended duties definitely were on the way out; subordination was “natural”, protection of employment was not. If the employee refused to perform tasks which were considered to be within the “natural” framework of the employment, he or she could be dismissed.This is still the case. The fundamental legal doctrine about “the nature of the firm”, and the teleological method that it founded, however, did not tumble down all of a sudden around the turn of the century in 1900. On the contrary, it rested upon underlying assumptions which had their origin much further back in Swedish legal thinking. c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 325
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=