c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 351 622 Malmberg 1997, pp. 373-375, 383-385. duty of obedience.622 It thus seems to be a continuation of the statements by Östen Undén and Birger Ekeberg around 1920, which claimed that collective agreements should have the same dignity as legislation. Obviously, lawmaking has been founded upon a notion, similar to Winroth’s of 1878, namely, that established customs, though on a collective level, must be regarded as a decisive source of law which forms pre-contractual and natural terms. It also reflects his “teleologically” founded attitude, according to which the worker was considered as a general contribution to the employer’s power. Other parts of Winroth’s programme have come into fashion quite recently.One example is the use of a selection of the masterservant rules. In 1878 he suggested that the formal application of master-servant rules be extended from blue collar workers living together with their masters, to white collar workers who lived by their own.This view contrasted not only with the predominant opinion among 19th century scholars and the legislative proposals between 1900 and 1928 but also to scope of the labour court’s lawmaking from around 1930. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the 1980s, the labour court used the 29/29-principle as a point of departure for the application of collective agreements in the public sector. It was for long uncertain whether the 29/29-principle was also applicable to salaried employees in the private sector. Decisions from the 1990s however showed that the principle’s far-reaching duty of obedience was considered as applicable to the private sector's higher salaried employees. The labour court has extended the applicability of the principle from being originally an optional principal concerning blue-collar workers in the private sector, to a general rule with a governing effect of great importance. In the court’s own wordings,“it is clear that the 29/29-principle is a significant tool as regards the whole of the labour market in connection with the interpretation of collective agreements”.A
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=