Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Skenbar arbetsbrist
Karlstad University, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Communication and IT.
2007 (Swedish)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Magister), 10 points / 15 hpStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2007. , p. 39
Keywords [sv]
arbetsbrist, personliga skäl, omplaceringsskyldighet, turordningsregler, anställningsskydd
National Category
Law
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-1090OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kau-1090DiVA, id: diva2:4868
Presentation
2007-07-02
Uppsok
samhälle/juridik
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2007-08-24 Created: 2007-08-24

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(186 kB)551 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 186 kBChecksum MD5
cfaee20e4ef11872843265a4124ffe3e6e01c30bfc506b7605b12fa135d10a8add507a49
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Faculty of Economic Sciences, Communication and IT
Law

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 551 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 508 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf