impression of expected passivity is further promoted by the fact that if an employee wants to make a complaint he or she must address the trade union and then patiently wait for the result of the organisation’s looking after his or her interests.632 Today one may think that the style of the labour court’s majority in decision 1929:29 was rather unpedagogical. Rather than educating the public on how justice was administered it simply informed the public that justice was administered. Its extensive use of “must be considered” (måste anses) may lead thoughts to what Zweigert and Kötz have called “the old tradition of an authoritarian state of a hundred years ago”, according to which, judgements should primarily be impersonal acts of the state which parade the majesty of the law in front of the citizens in awe of authority. Therefore, the judgements “must not let it emerge that the judges have reached their decisions through a hesitant and doubtful balancing of the pros and cons of concrete solutions of the problem thrown up by the ‘case’, rather than by sheer intellect and cold logic.”633 One can ask whether the labour court’s judges of today would have chosen to openly present their lines of reasoning.Would they have reached a different decision than their predecessors did in 1929? What alternatives are there? Maybe today the key to a more flexible, compatible and profitable system of production and administration will be that employees will be entrusted with greater responsibility and influence? Maybe in the future, individual skill, ability and creativity will be emphasised at the same time as the employer becomes more motivated to keep the individual worker’s competence? Maybe, even if the decision-making becomes slower, the employee will give his or her best service due to commitment and critical reflection about how to organise the work? Such a shift would make the procedural element of labour law even more p a r t v, c h a p t e r 1 2 356 632 Bruun 1995, pp. 87-90; SOU1993:32, pp. 135-148. 633 Zweigert and Kötz 1992, pp. 272-273.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=