Aim and questions: The purpose of this paper is to clarify the responsibilities employers have for rehabilitation and to explore how it conforms to an employers' actual condi-tions. Furthermore, the intention is to increase knowledge of how employers interact with other partners in the rehabilitation process and what affects sick people to return to work. The following three questions form the basis of this paper: What are employers’ responsibilities for rehabilitation under the law and how is it consistent with an employer's actual conditions? What is the role of employers in the rehabilitation co- operation with other actors? What factors influence sick people to return to work? Method: The paper has used a true scientific and a legal sociological method to examine how the regulated employer responsibility for rehabilitation relates to what is practical in re-ality. To achieve the purpose, four empirical interviews were conducted with Örebro Municipality, Insurance, occupational health Previa and a doctor, which all of them have an important role in the rehabilitation process. The interviewees received questionnaires in advance so they knew what was requested. Results: Sickness absence rates increased in Sweden during 2000-´s which has brought more attention to rehabilitation. Previous research shows that a dysfunctional workplace often has more sick leave than a well-functioning workplace and that employer’s incentives to improve working conditions differ. Employers have statutory occupational health and rehabilitation responsibilities, but the question is how it is fulfilled? The results show that Örebro Municipality has several documents that describe how they should proceed with their occupational health and rehabilitation work, and that they have introduced a so called health package. It is hoped that this preventative approach will lead to a reduction in sickness absence. The statistics also show that the proportion of long-term sickness has subsided, which they among other things think may be due to the rehabilitation chain introduced in 2008 with fixed time limits. Conclusion: Prevention and health promotion is essential to reduce the risk of sick leave and that earlier rehabilitation measures, the better. The rehabilitation chain has led to an earlier and more structured rehabilitation program and that more cases of illnesses are concluded more quickly. However, the rehabilitation interaction needs further improvement, in hopes that ongoing efforts will bring.

No description available.