One of the most fundamental principles of an employment relationship is that the employee is subordinate to the employers right to lead and distribute the work. The employers right to lead and distribute work also includes an independent right to relocate employees, within the framework of the employment. On the other hand, the employment relationship entails an obligation for employees to perform work on behalf of the employer. The purpose of this essay is to investigate and analyze the employers right to relocate employees and the employees’ obligation to work. The essay will examine which circumstances are decisive in the assessment of whether a relocation is too intrusive or not. It will also be examined how extensive the work obligation of employees is when relocating. To achieve this purpose, legislation, case law, doctrine and other literature will be analyzed. The study presents that there are several factors that are decisive in the assessment whether a relocation is too intrusive. It can be established that individual circumstances in the specific situation are of great importance in the assessment. However, some factors that are relevant according the court’s assessments are custom in the line of business and workplace, the effects of the relocation on the employee and the employer’s reasons for the relocation. Since relocations are a complex concept and many relocations are of a unique nature, it would be complicated and problematic to establish general assessment criteria for all relocations.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The right of redeployment is a central part of the right of management, and is used to be able to adapt the workforce to the needs of the business. The right of management can only be exercised within the limits of the employee’s obligation to work, which makes the definition of it central. Neither the employer’s right of management nor the employee’s obligation to work is required by law, and it can sometimes be difficult to know how far the employer’s right of redeployment extends. The answers are found in collective agreements, individual employment agreements and case law, which means that the limits of the right of redeployment can vary. The right to relocate may be restricted by other laws, which the employer must take into account when deciding to relocate an employee. Principles have emerged from case law to take into consideration when guiding circumstances do not provide answers to the limits of the obligation to work. The development of labor law that has taken place in recent decades has undoubtedly affected the right of redeployment.

No description available.

No description available.

A fundamental part of labor law is that the employer is free to control and distribute the work. This means an opportunity for the employer to redeploy an employee within the framework of the employment. The principle of subordination means that the employee is subordinate to the employer and therefore has a duty of obedience to follow the employer's regulations. An employee is obliged to perform tasks that are justified according to the 29/29 principle. The tasks must have a natural connection with the employer's business, the work is performed on behalf of the employer and that the tasks fall within the employee's professional qualifications. The implication is that an employee is obliged to accept the relocation, provided that it falls within the employee's work obligations and that the relocation does not contravene applicable rules and laws. The purpose of the work is to examine how far the work management right and work obligation extend in the event of a relocation. Furthermore, the possibility for an employee to refuse to perform tasks that go against his morals and conscience, even though the tasks are in accordance with the work obligation, is tested. The essay also addresses circumstances when a relocation is considered legitimate or not. As neither the right of management nor the duty to work is in principle legislated, case law and doctrine have been the main sources of law to determine the applicable law. The employer's right to manage and distribute the work is extensive and the employee's obligation to perform tasks is comprehensive. However, both can be limited by provisions in employment contracts and collective agreements, but also legal provisions regulated in, among other things, MBL and LAS.

In the individual employment relationship, the employer has a management right and the employee an obligation to work. This balance of interest become difficult in relation to infection. Employers, on the one hand have the interest in having the work performed and a work environment responsibility to take all necessary measures to ensure that the employee is not exposed to ill health. While on the other hand the employee has a duty to work but may feel anxious about performing work that may involve danger for the workers own life and health. In this essay you will be reading about what legal obligations both from an international and national level an employer has in conjunction with infection, and what legal obligations in combination with the right to refuseto perform dangerous work an employee has. This is to enable an analysis of whether the different interest should and can be weighed between and against each other when it comes to infection. The essay will also draw parallels to covid-19 as it is relevant in connection with infection. This essay is namely written during the current pandemic of corona and the disease covid-19.

No description available.