No description available.

Abstract The subject of this thesis is the priority rules that apply in connection with mining activity. Already back in the 1800s, there were rules in the so-called Lego Charter concerning protection of workers, mainly servants. When the first modern trade union was founded in the 1870s, also developed a collective agreement. These agreements were the order of priority clauses had to intend to ensure employees' working lives. Exceptions had to be done by ensuring that individual employees' dependents. In 1974 the Act on employment entry and had intended to protect older workers. The case The rules of this law was entrusted to this dispositive which was forced to adapt to different conditions in different branches. The law was renewed in 1982 but no change in priority rules were then. The case rules have existed for many years but is still talked about topic in today's job market. LO says that it is heavy interests discussed topic, the basic balance of power that must be between the employer and employee. Businesses have their expertise which is often met with agreement timetables established when reductions become necessary. This agreements timetable is something under discussion between employers and unions, which in most cases is done when the reduction of the staff comes. The reason of many chosen subject is the constant discussion of priority roles. Are the rules a necessary security in the Swedish labor market or is it just an outdated phenomenon? The continuous globalization requires greater skill needs of businesses. How does the priority rules in today´s society? Since the tropic is often up in the news, I feel an interest to gain further knowledge and a keen understanding of the priority rules.

Uppsatsen tar avstamp i undersökningen av ståndpunkter från LO, TCO och Svenskt Näringsliv kring lagen om anställningsskydd och kompetens i relation till dagens arbetsmarknad och arbetsbristsituationer på företag. Utifrån en bakgrund av globalisering, stegrad internationell konkurrens samt arbetsmarknadens ökade krav på kompetens och flexibilitet utmanas välfärdssystemet och den arbetsreglering som kännetecknat och format Sverige.Uppsatsen frågar sig vad de olika parterna LO, TCO och Svenskt Näringsliv lägger i begreppet kompetens när de pratar om LAS och denna lag tar hänsyn till kompetens vid uppsägningar på grund av arbetsbrist i företag och i så fall hur.Slutsatser är att parterna verkar ha särdeles olika syn på hur begreppet kompetens i relation till LAS skall definieras och tillämpas. LO och TCO rör sig bort från det kompetensbegrepp som belyser resultaten i studien och framtonar mer tillräckliga kvalifikationer och allmänna yrkeskunskaper. Svenskt Näringsliv begreppsliggör mer kompetens som något som kan sättas i relation till personliga egenskaper. Detta kan bero på att de representerar olika grupper på arbetsmarknaden och att man företräder olika intressen och kanske även olika ideologier.En annan slutsats är att LO och TCO tycker att lagen om anställningsskydd tar hänsyn till kompetens vid arbetsbristsituationer på företag genom turordningsreglernas tillräckliga kvalifikationer och branschanpassade avtal. Svenskt Näringsliv tycker däremot inte att lagen tar hänsyn till kompetens och att detta beror på att anställningstiden är kriteriet i turordningen istället för kompetens, som i sig inte täcks av tillräckliga kvalifikationer. / The final paper discusses the point of views between two central labor unions and one central employer union when it comes to the law of employment protection in Sweden and competence, in relation to the labor market of today and redundancies in companies and firms.  The aim and object with the paper is to ask how the three different unions define the word competence when they speak of the regulation of employment security and if this law takes competence within the employees in consideration when a company is faced with redundancies.  Conclusions made are that the three different unions differs when they speak about competence in relation to the emplyment protection law and that this can be reflected in the various groups that they represent and might even concern ideology to a certain point.

<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.

Since several rules of law have a consideration of age, the Swedish labor law collides in many ways with the prohibition of age discrimination.   The employment directives of EU were implemented in the member countries after the shift of the millennium. Sweden was the last member to introduce age as a ground of discrimination in its legislation. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether the Swedish regulations, regarding age discrimination and its application, is compatible with the EU.  The aim is also to investigate what is required to exclude the prohibition of age discrimination. The labor law provisions concerning the retirement age given in 32 a and 33 §§ LAS, priority rules according to 22 § LAS and the collectively agreed holiday benefit, which is regulated according to a worker's age, is to be investigated to see if they actually qualify for the exclusion of the prohibition against age discrimination. Furthermore, the paper intends to describe if the Swedish legislation has taken account of the research available on the subject of "age" and “age discrimination”. In order to fulfill the purpose, the paper is based on a legal dogmatic method.   The content of the essay consists initially of an investigation about the EU employment directive and also about the Swedish legislation on age discrimination. Furthermore the contents describe the above three rules, and what research on the subject suggests.   Comparing of the Swedish anti-discrimination legislation and the EU employment directive, indicates that the Swedish legislation meets the minimum requirements of the directive. The results of the paper indicate that there are a lot of room for exceptions, which makes it difficult to pinpoint where the border between age discrimination and preferential treatment based on age is drawn. 32 a and 33 §§ LAS along with the collectively agreed holiday benefit do not qualify for the exclusion of the prohibition against age discrimination. It is therefore concluded that there are weaknesses in the Swedish legislation, in attempt to exclude the prohibition of age discrimination. The priority rules under 22 § LAS are examples of legitimate distinctions based on age. Furthermore, neither the EU nor the Swedish legislation took account of the research on age and age discrimination.

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.

Det huvudsakliga syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka de svenska turordningsreglerna i 22§ LAS och den danska arbetsmarknadsmodellen flexicurity. Syftet är att undersöka ländernas modeller för att se hur båda ländernas arbetstagare och arbetsmarknad påverkas. Kan Sverige eventuellt lära sig något av den danska arbetsmarknadsmodellen? Den danska arbetsmarknadsmodellen präglas av en stor flexibilitet vilket både gör det lättare att anställa och säga upp arbetstagare. I Danmark finns det ingen lag om anställningsskydd, därför finns det inte heller några turordningsregler som kan tillämpas vid arbetsbrist. Resultat och statistik visar på att turordningsreglerna både bidrar till att unga på arbetsmarknaden missgynnas och att arbetsrörligheten blir lägre. Turordningsreglernas syfte är att skydda de mest utsatta arbetstagarna på arbetsmarknaden. Syftet av reglerna fyller idag inte längre sin funktion då det framförallt är de unga arbetstagarna som är de mest utsatta. Sysselsättningsgraden bland personer mellan 15-24 år är nästan 20 procent lägre i Sverige i jämförelse med Danmark. Det är till stor del den unga arbetskraften som bär upp den danska sysselsättningsgraden då de visar lägre siffror bland äldre men framförallt bland personer med invandrarbakgrund. Den danska arbetsmarknadsmodellens allra svagaste sida är just att de inte riktigt lyckats integrera personer med invandrarbakgrund på arbetsmarknaden. Statistik visar även att det är arbetstagare med invandrarbakgrund som är den grupp av arbetstagare som är mest flexibel.

No description available.

Dagens dynamiska arbetsmarknad har utmanats av globalisering, digitalisering, teknisk utveckling och ett växande kunskapssamhälle, vilket har resulterat i utmaningar för arbetsgivare att förse sin organisation med kompetens. Utöver detta har lagändringar och konjunktursvängningar en betydelse för arbetsgivares möjlighet till kompetensförsörjning. En strävan efter ökad flexibilitet på arbetsmarknaden har sedan länge varit på tapeten – även på EU-nivå. Europeiska sysselsättningsstrategin, flexicurity, är ämnad att skapa balans mellan flexibilitet och trygghet och ligger till grund för en reformering av arbetsrätten; i synnerhet av anställningsskyddet och turordningsreglerna, vilka regleras i lagen (SFS 1982:80) om anställningsskydd (LAS). Men hur upplever privata arbetsgivare arbetsrätten med hänseende på kompetensförsörjning? En moderniserad arbetsrätt är ett aktuellt ämne och denna studie har som syfte att undersöka privata arbetsgivares upplevelser av huruvida LAS idag och den nya LAS-reformen påverkar deras möjlighe ttill kompetensförsörjning. I denna studie deltog nio privata arbetsgivare, från relativt små företag, för att bidra med deras perspektiv genom semistrukturerade intervjuer. Kvalitativ metod valdes för att skapa en djupare förståelse av informanternas upplevelser. Resultatet visar att det råder konsensus i hur informanterna bevarar kompetens i verksamheterna; detta sker genom att vara flexibla, ha en vänlig organisationskultur och tydlig kommunikation på arbetsplatsen. Överlag är alla informanter överens om att en ny arbetsrättslig lagstiftning, med ökad flexibilitet, skulle underlätta kompetensförsörjningen – trots att den nya reformen inte verkar kunna tillgodose deras behov av kompetensförsörjning fullt ut. Exempel på aspekter som presenteras som nackdelar med nuvarande LAS är svårigheter att bli av med anställda som inte presterar, att ett otillräckligt antal arbetstagare får undantas från turordningsreglerna i situationer av arbetsbrist och att det finns en oro att ha en övertalighet av arbetstagare. För att inte riskera övertalighet och för att skydda sin organisation mot konjunktursvängningar, väljer majoriteten av informanterna tidsbegränsade anställningar som en anställningsform i sina organisationer. Denna anställningsform har resulterat i att informanterna har kunnat anpassa personalomsättningen efter deras behov. Potentiella nackdelar med den nya LAS-reformen uppges vara svårigheter att turordna kompetens, då det i det nya LAS-förslaget kommer vara viktigare än arbetstid vid situationer av arbetsbrist. Möjligheten att kunna undanta fem personer uppges vara för få – om än bättre än två, vilket gäller för dagens LAS. Vidare visar resultatet att det finns motsättningar till att behöva kompetensutveckla alla arbetstagare som varit anställda längre än sex månader – oberoende av hur organisationens omsättning ser ut.