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
An employee was terminated from his employment due to redundancy because the employer had decided to engage a staffing agency instead to perform the work. The Labour Court found that a redundancy situation was at hand and that the employment termination was valid.
A regional manager claimed before the Labour Court that a non-competition clause effective for 24 months after the termination of the employment should be declared unreasonable and thus invalid. The Labour Court found that the clause imposed a restriction of the manager’s possibilities to continue working with professional activities. Since no compensation was paid to the former employee for the non-competition restriction, the clause was declared invalid.
An employer summarily dismissed an employee based on allegations that the employee had threatened a colleague and in other ways been aggressive. The Labor Court found it proven that the employee had threatened his colleague and that several other employees were afraid of the employee. However, the Labor Court found that these circumstances did not constitute legal grounds for summary dismissal of the employee.
The proposal suggests that a new act on camera monitoring will replace the current camera surveillance act and enter into force on 25 May 2018. The purpose of the new act is to increase the possibilities of camera monitoring for crime prevention and other justified purposes, but also to strengthen the personal integrity when an employer utilizes camera monitoring at the work place.
The Swedish Labour Court concluded that an employee did not have adequate reasons to refuse overtime work during the weekend. The Court found that such behaviour constituted objective grounds for termination of the employment with notice but not for termination with immediate effect