Enligt 7 § 2 st. lagen (1982:80) om anställningsskydd (LAS) krävs för att en uppsägning ska vara sakligt grundad att arbetsgivaren bereder arbetstagaren annat arbete hos sig. Skyldigheten föreligger både vid en uppsägning på grund av arbetsbrist och vid en uppsägning av personliga skäl. I synnerhet vid en omplacering av en arbetstagare i en stor kommun kan det uppstå frågor kring vad som ska omfattas av omplaceringsskyldigheten. Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda omfattningen av en kommuns omplaceringsskyldighet. I praxis och doktrin finns det stöd för att en kommun och ett landsting kan begränsa omplaceringsansträngningarna till att avse endast berörd gren av verksamheten. För att en sådan uppdelning ska få göras krävs det att arbetsgivaren har en fullständig personalfunktion och ledning som om den vore en egen juridisk person. En sådan begränsning bör dock tillämpas restriktivt. LAS ger inte arbetstagaren ett befattningsskydd, utan endast ett långtgående anställningsskydd, varför det inte finns någon begränsning i vilket sorts jobb som ska erbjudas en arbetstagare som annars riskerar bli uppsagd. Ett omplaceringserbjudande måste dock alltid vara skäligt, således ska arbetsgivaren erbjuda det jobb som anses vara mest lämpligt i förhållande till arbetstagarens tidigare anställning. Omplaceringserbjudandet ska vidare avse en vakans som är ledig vid uppsägningstidpunkten och som arbetstagaren har tillräckliga kvalifikationer för. Har arbetstagaren gjort sig skyldig till grov misskötsamhet är arbetsgivaren ej skyldig att göra en omplaceringsutredning. Emellertid är kraven på arbetsgivaren att uppfylla omplaceringsskyldigheten högt ställda och då en uppsägning ogiltigförklaras vid en ej riktigt utförd omplacering, bör en grundlig omplaceringsutredning alltid ske vid en uppsägningssituation.

<p>In claims for unfair dismissal due to alleged redundancy, the burden of proof should be shared to enable an employee to have the cause of redundancy tried. In such a case, the employee should present evidence of an invalid cause – such as personal reasons – and the employer should account for the redundancy. With reference to their conflicting interests, the law favours the employer if the redundancy can be accounted for even if the employee maintains his or her position. This would have been reasonable practice if the employer’s evidence was subject to the same scrutiny as that of the employee but, as long as redundancy is considered a valid cause in itself, this is not the case.</p><p>Redundancy does not come from nowhere, but it occurs when employers carry out their management decisions. However, redundancy has never been questioned unless there has literally been shortage of work, which, in turn, has left the management rights unrestricted. Thus, the employer has the exclusive right to decide how and to what extent the business should be run. The only requirement for a valid cause is for the employer to show that actual operational changes have been made. In reality, this means the burden of proof is not shared and the employee cannot have the cause of redundancy tried.</p><p>This makes the order of hiring the remaining protection against unfair dismissal. A dismissed employee is entitled to be reassigned to other duties that he or she is capable of performing and that are currently performed by a more recently hired employee. Since the employer also has the exclusive right to decide which qualities are required for a particular position, the actual qualifications of the individual employee turn out very important. In cases where the employer has changed these requirements, the deciding factor is often whether the employer has been offered the relevant training opportunities. Since employers have no strict legal obligation to train their staff in a redundancy situation, they are in a position to decide where redundancy occurs and whom it will affect. As a consequence, the dismissal order regulations provide limited protection against unfair dismissals due to alleged redundancy.</p>

In claims for unfair dismissal due to alleged redundancy, the burden of proof should be shared to enable an employee to have the cause of redundancy tried. In such a case, the employee should present evidence of an invalid cause – such as personal reasons – and the employer should account for the redundancy. With reference to their conflicting interests, the law favours the employer if the redundancy can be accounted for even if the employee maintains his or her position. This would have been reasonable practice if the employer’s evidence was subject to the same scrutiny as that of the employee but, as long as redundancy is considered a valid cause in itself, this is not the case. Redundancy does not come from nowhere, but it occurs when employers carry out their management decisions. However, redundancy has never been questioned unless there has literally been shortage of work, which, in turn, has left the management rights unrestricted. Thus, the employer has the exclusive right to decide how and to what extent the business should be run. The only requirement for a valid cause is for the employer to show that actual operational changes have been made. In reality, this means the burden of proof is not shared and the employee cannot have the cause of redundancy tried. This makes the order of hiring the remaining protection against unfair dismissal. A dismissed employee is entitled to be reassigned to other duties that he or she is capable of performing and that are currently performed by a more recently hired employee. Since the employer also has the exclusive right to decide which qualities are required for a particular position, the actual qualifications of the individual employee turn out very important. In cases where the employer has changed these requirements, the deciding factor is often whether the employer has been offered the relevant training opportunities. Since employers have no strict legal obligation to train their staff in a redundancy situation, they are in a position to decide where redundancy occurs and whom it will affect. As a consequence, the dismissal order regulations provide limited protection against unfair dismissals due to alleged redundancy.

No description available.

This essay will address restrictions that an employer has in case of termination of employment due to redundancy. A company that has financial problems or wants to reorganize their business may need to lay some employees off work. That kind of happening does not happen easy for the employer. Although a Swedish employer has a right to direct and allocate work there are a few restrictions before an employee does not work at the company anymore. To find out how these restrictions affects an employer and their rights the Swedish law, with both laws, preparatory work and case law will be examined. Apart from the Swedish legislation the essay will also have a look into the EU legislation and how it affects national law. The legal research will contain of laws and case law with focus on the employer’s obligation to reposition an employee in 7§ law regarding employee protection and to obtain the priority rules, 22§ of the same law. Furthermore, with a theory of interest, the essay will discuss why and how the labour court argue for the employee or employers right to allocate work. The EU will be compared to the Swedish legislation to see if there are differences and what the differences may be. The legal research alongside the analysis showed that these restrictions can, if used well, not be restrictions that interfere with the employers right to direct and allocate work. This as a result of the theory of interest model. Finally, the essay shows how the EU and Swedish legislation are compatible.