a far-reaching right to change the conditions of the other party’s contribution, a right that was protected by the industrial peace obligation in the legislation concerning collective agreements. If the employee refused to perform tasks which were considered to be within the framework of the employment, he or she could be dismissed. This regulation was highly advantageous for employers. The court made no reference to special circumstances, accepted sources of laws or other arguments whatsoever. It just simply justified its conclusion based upon the assumption that the collective agreement “must be considered” (Sw. måste anses) to imply certain consequences. Swedish legal scholars after the Second World War have shown an ambivalent attitude to the labour court’s lawmaking during the period1929-34.Although in general they have given it a stronger legitimacy by analysing and systematising, several writers have been confused about the court’s references to natural and hidden terms.Were they founded upon a notion about the parties’ intentions, the general understanding of the law, established traditions or legal political considerations about getting a reasonable result? This long-term study has shown that references to an apparently confusing relationship between contract and status in labour relations as well as between legally binding rules and established customs were not phenomena that suddenly appeared around 1930. Nor was the reference to “nature” as the legal foundation for treating employment as a relationship of inequality and subordination. In part II we found that a contractual approach to labour relations was well established in Swedish law as early as in the first half of the 18th century. In 1729 David Nehrman analysed the master-servant relationship from a contractual point of view. Nevertheless he considered it to include mandatory and natural p a r t v, c h a p t e r 11 328 11. 2 the anci ent mode l
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=