trade and environmental protection.The code did not regulate any other labour relation beside the traditional master-servant relationship, which was placed among the chapters on hiring (Sw. lega), in the Book of Commerce (Handelsbalken). In the light of the different opinions regarding the novelty of the code, we have reason to ask: did the code bring about any changes concerning the master-servant relationship? The answer is “yes” - and “no”. It is no, due to the fact that the members of the law commission paid very little attention to the issue. It must, however, be noted that they presupposed a kind of legal protection of employment, by emphasising that a master could not dismiss his servant without having a“reasonable ground” (Sw. skälig orsak).94 This statement was not presented as an effort to change the system. From a substantial point of view, the code itself did not add anything new at all to the well-known picture. It simply repeated the most important rules from the Statute on Servants and Hired Labourers, such as the minimum period for the contract, the master’s right to chastise and keep the servants as well as his duty to protect and take care of them.95 Yes, is the answer, if we consider that the rules were placed in the Book of Commerce, which regulated contracts between legal actors. From a legal systematical point of view this was a change in comparison with the administrative character of the previous rules. The subordinate status of a servant was backed up in other parts of the code. Among the rules on sale and exchange, a prohibition appeared against buying anything from a servant, wife or a child, if there was not a special permission from his or her master. Such a sale was to be declared null and void from a contractual point of view. Furthermore the buyer should pay a fine to c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n t r ac t 53 94 Notes fromThe Law Commission, March 1,1722 in Sjögren 1900-1909, III, p. 268. 95 The Code of 1734,The Book on Commerce, Chapter 14, Om legohjon (On hiring of servants).The protection of the servant even included that his remaining salary claim was given a priority if the master went bankrupt. Sigeman 1967, pp. 29-31.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=