c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 353 very same wording is to be found already in his book from1959, where he states that “as a specific part of the service contract is usually emphasised the worker’s duty of fidelity or what I call the demand for loyalty to the employer”. If one had to state a common point of view, it was that the employee was “obliged to put the employer’s interest ahead of his own, and to avoid situations in which he might get into a conflict of duties”. Schmidt wrote that the German counterpart to this principle was called Treuepflicht, and referred to a current textbook by Hueck and Nipperdey.626 These two authors, in turn, had already in their book’s first edition from1931, claimed that according to the “German legal” opinion (nach deutch-rechtlicher Auffassung), employment did not only concern an exchange of property contributions but also personal duties between the parties, which were ruled by the issue of the parties’ mutual fidelity (Treue).This aspect of fidelity still determined the employee’s duty to work as well as his time spent when he was off work. Consequently, due to the personal bonds between the parties, he was obliged to “satisfy the employer’s interests and to refrain from anything that inflicts damages to these interests”.627 Thus, it is clear that the roots of some parts of the labour court’s decision in 1993 extended far back in legal thinking, and that these parts had been - and were to be - selected, legitimised and cultivated by an interaction between scholars and judges. In the 1994 edition of Schmidt’s textbook, the employee’s duty to put his counterpart’s interest ahead of his own was supported by a reference to the labour court’s decision from the previous year.628 This lawmaking is in line with what Winroth had indicated more than a century ago and confirms that the modern Swedish 626 Schmidt, F, 1959, p. 241. 627 “das Interesse des Arbeitsgebers wahrzunehmen /…/ und alles zu unterlassen, was diese Interessen schädigt”.Hueck & Nipperdey1955-59, p. 220-221;Hueck & Nipperdey1931, p. 179; Hueck 1947, p. 13. See also above, part IV. 628 Schmidt, F & Eklund 1994, pp. 257-258.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=