Amendments have been made to the Foreign Posting Employees Act and to the Employment (Co-Determination in the Workplace) Act following the European Court of Justice ruling in the "Laval" case (C-341/05). The following changes mean that industrial action (e.g. strike) by a trade union against a foreign employer in order to enforce a collective bargaining agreement (covering the posted employees) may only be taken under certain circumstances. For example, the conditions of employment demanded by the trade union must be equivalent to the conditions of a central collective bargaining agreement applied in Sweden for corresponding employees. The Swedish Work Environment Authority shall assist foreign employers with information as to what employment conditions might be applicable when posting employees to Sweden. Trade unions shall deliver to the Swedish Work Environment Authority examples of collective bargaining agreement conditions for which the trade union might initiate industrial action.
The amendments came into force on 15 April 2010.
Reported case law
Case no. A 76/09, ref. no. 50/10 - Summary dismissal for conflict of interest
A group manager at an insurance company had during a claim adjustment bought a scooter at discount from the insured, a company selling, amongst other things, motor vehicles. The insurance company summarily dismissed the employee by referring to the employee's obligation of loyalty to the employer and the company's internal ethical rules. The question that the Labour Court had to consider was whether the summary dismissal was based on objective grounds.
Initially, the Labour Court held that the price of the scooter was not so favourable that the procedure could constitute bribery. The Labour Court, however, further held that due to circumstances – e.g. that the employee had taken an active part in the claims adjustment and that he was the one that should have handled the case at a possible appeal – his actions had undermined the employer's confidence in him to such extent that the employer had been entitled to summarily dismiss him from its employment.
Case no. B 44/09, ref. no 27/10 - Breach of non-compete
clause
An IT consultant bound by a non-compete clause in his employment agreement gave notice of termination of his employment and started a competitive business. In breach of contract he sent out contact details to customers covered by the non-compete clause and also contacted customers by telephone in order to offer his services. Due to these actions customers terminated their relationship with the former employer and instead entered into business with the IT consultant.
The Labour Court held that it was obvious that the IT consultant had been in breach of the non-compete prohibition and that he had caused damage to his former employer's business. Further, the court held that the non-compete clause was reasonable, it was limited in its scope and that it only involved a limited restriction in the IT consultant's possibilities, as employee or through own business, to engage in professional activities. Based on the above, the court ruled that the IT consultant was required to pay damages to his former employer.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
