Following a transfer of undertakings, the transferred employees were dismissed more than one year after the transfer took place. The employer did not include the employees’ length of service with the transferor when determining their rights of extended periods of notice. The Swedish Labour Court ruled that the employees were not entitled to extended periods of notice.
Four employees resigned to start a business in competition with their former employer. The former employer claimed damages from the employees. The former employer could not prove that the employees unlawfully had used trade secrets, but the Swedish Labour Court found that the disloyalty warranted economic liability.
An employee received payments from a party other than the employer stipulated in the employment agreement. The employee was deemed to have justified reasons to perceive the party paying the salary as the employer and thus the right party against which an action for damages could be brought.
The Swedish Labour Court found three former employees liable to pay economic damages of SEK 2,100,000 for disloyalty when planning and preparing a competing business.
The proposed changes to the Swedish legislation on the protection of trade secrets suggest that it shall be considered an attack on a trade secret if an employee acquires unauthorized access to a trade secret to which the employee otherwise have lawful access due to employment or other similar grounds.
A female teacher claimed that an employer enforced discriminatory standards, directly or indirectly due to her religious beliefs, by demanding that all teachers must shake hands with co-workers and students regardless of their gender. However, the Swedish Labour Court concluded that discrimination had not been showed since the teacher had not proven that such standards were enforced.
Sanitation workers in Stockholm refused to work or called in sick in order to prevent the employer from conducting an inventory of the keys to the facilities in their area of operations. Court ruling held that the industrial actions were deemed unlawful and that the importance of functioning sanitary services in the community should be considered when deciding upon damages.
An employer’s organisation was obligated to pay damages for not entering into consultations with a trade union regarding a central collective bargaining agreement. The Labour Court found that the rules on consultations were to be interpreted in the light of their function and in the light of the right to freedom of association.
A decision, which prohibited dentists’ usage of disposable sleeves, rendered a Muslim female employee to resign from her employment. The Swedish Discrimination Ombudsman claimed the prohibition to be indirectly discriminatory against Muslim women covering their arms for religious reasons. The Swedish Labour Court found that the purpose of the prohibition – to protect life and health – was appropriate and necessary and thus that the prohibition was lawful.
Court ruling from the Swedish Labor Court held that an employer of a care assistant was not obligated to investigate sexual and racist harassments that the care assistant alleged that she had been a victim of by the caretaker’s partner