c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 327 made directly by the state but by autonomous groups, primarily the big organisations on the labour market.Thus the making of the contract of employment has a crucial connection to a system of collectivism and a perception that established customs are legally binding sources. These features have formed the background of the study’s two overall issues. The first one concerns how the principle about the worker’s subordination and far-reaching duty of obedience emerged in 20th century Swedish labour law. In what manner had Swedish legislators and legal scholars treated the relationship between master and servant as well as between employer and employee? The second issue concerns the analysis of labour relationships that the Swedish private law scholar Alfred OssianWinroth presented in1878.Around 80 years later, in1959, the founding father of Swedish labour law Folke Schmidt characterised it as a breakthrough of “the modern thinking about contract law”. For what reasons canWinroth’s opinions be characterised as modern? The employee’s duty of obedience is generally traced back to a series of decisions by the Swedish Labour Court around 1930. In case 1929:29 the court laid down that a collective agreement must be considered to imply that the worker is obliged to perform all tasks that are naturally connected with the activities of the employer, and may be regarded as falling within the worker’s general professional qualifications. One important starting point of the court’s “29/29-principle” seems to have been a notion that the individual contract of employment was governed by certain “naturalia negotii” that were so self-evident that they applied to the individual contract even without ever being mentioned by the parties.The labour court then should have interpolated these naturalia into the collective agreements.This has had the consequence that the employer got 11. 1 confus ing case law?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=