heavy burden of proof is placed on the employee who claims that the parties have agreed upon different terms.623 Another illustration, which furthermore concerns the legacy of Folke Schmidt, is the moralisation of the employment contract and in particular the principle of loyalty.The Protection of Employment Act in 1974 prescribed that an employee in principal could be dismissed on only two grounds, namely a shortage of work or “personal reasons”. This limitation combined with changed forum rules meant that the labour court received a wide jurisdiction concerning the obligations of the parties to individual contracts of employment, including the worker’s duty of subordination.This was partly a new situation for the court, since its task for half a century had primarily been to handle the collective agreements. In1878Winroth had written that the legal consequences of the master-servant relationship “in a sharp contrast to what occurs in other contracts within property law are of a predominantly ethical nature”.624 In case 1993:18, the labour court had to consider the dismissal of a hairdresser, who on her time off, and on her own initiative, had cut some of her neighbours’ hair and received money for it, which resulted in her employer losing them as customers. The court declared that an employee who on her time off took up competition with her employer showed grave disloyalty.Moreover, it noted that common to the different aspects on loyalty was “the idea that the contract of employment does not only consist of an exchange of ordinary property law contributions, but that it also creates a personal relationship between the parties”. This statement might seem to be an echo of Winroth, but the court quoted literally from, and referred openly to, a textbook by Folke Schmidt in a revised edition of 1988.625 However, the p a r t v, c h a p t e r 1 2 352 623 Sigeman 1995. 624 Winroth 1878, p. ii. 625 AD1993:18; Schmidt, F et. al. 1988, p. 194.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=