A loud argument about a salary decrease led to an employee leaving the workplace for good. The employer was found to have taken advantage of the uncertain situation regarding the employee’s employment, in a way that was equivalent to a summary dismissal and was liable to pay damages to the employee.
The case concerned whether the termination of an employee’s employment contract was due to redundancy or whether it was related to the employee’s application for parental leave. The Court found that the dismissal of the employee had a close connection in time with the employee’s filing for parental leave and that the dismissal was in breach of the non-discrimination principle of the Swedish Parental Leave Act.
The case concerned an employee who was dismissed due to his inability to perform in accordance with his undertakings following from the employment contract. The Court concluded that the dismissal was based on legal grounds.
The Labour Court awarded the employee SEK 50,000 in general damages, an amount corresponding to two months’ salary in economic damages and obligated the employee to pay half of the employer’s legal costs due to the overall outcome of the case.
The Labour Court awarded an employee of a law firm retroactive vacation pay and damages for the law firm’s breach of the Swedish Annual Leave, concluding that the law firm had been unsuccessful in proving that the parties had agreed that the vacation pay should be in included in the salary.
an employee organisation for musical artists gave notice of industrial actions when the production company for the TV-show IDOL refused to enter into a collective bargaining agreement. The production company disputed the legality of the industrial actions due to the peace obligation. The Labour Court declared the industrial actions legal by an interim decision.
in a redundancy situation, a number of employees in a grocery chain were offered continued employment with shortened working hours. The employees signed the employment offers, but noted “under protest” on them. The Labour Court found that the offers should be regarded as an offer of new employment and that the employees had accepted the offers, regardless of their note of “under protest”. The offer of new employment was not seen as a dismissal from the employer’s side.
amendments to the Act regarding Active Measures will come into force on 1 January 2017.
Employment Law Across 27 Jurisdictions 2016, an L&E Global and Clyde & Co joint publication, provides a brief outline of the employment law regime across 27 key jurisdictions throughout the globe.
On 31 March 2016 new provisions about organisational and social work environment (AFS 2015:4) will come into effect. According to the provisions the employer must, for example, have a policy in place with clear routines for how to handle victimization at work. If the obligations are not observed, the employer may be liable to pay […]