Stricter rules on posting of workers
On 30 July 2020, stricter rules on posting of workers entered into force, thereby implementing the revised posted workers directive (Directive 2018/957). The new rules mean, among other things, that the remuneration that employee organizations may require in collective bargaining agreements is no longer limited to the minimum level, meaning that posted workers shall be entitled to a remuneration equivalent to that of locally employed workers in a comparable situation. Workers on long-term postings shall be entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment as apply to locally employed workers with only some exemptions.
Furthermore, employers must report the posting to the Swedish Work Environment Authority and appoint a contact person in Sweden no later than the date the posting begins and provide documentation to the recipient of service in Sweden that the posting has been reported. If the recipient does not receive any documentation from the employer, the recipient has an obligation to notify the Swedish Work Environment Authority.
Negotiations regarding a modernization of the Swedish labor law have stalled
On 1 June 2020, a special investigator presented its inquiry on a modernization of the Swedish labor law. The proposed bill has been much debated and widely criticized by employee organizations and the Left Party (Vänsterpartiet). The parties of the labor market were given a chance to work out an agreement before 30 September 2020 that would apply instead of the bill but have not yet managed to reach an agreement. The negotiations will therefore continue during the fall.
The Labor Court clarifies that a probationary period may be extended under certain circumstances
On 30 September 2020, the Labor Court ruled in a case where an employer had decided that a probationary employment would not be transferred into a permanent employment because the employer did not consider itself able to assess the employee’s performance because he had been on parental leave for most of the probationary period. The reason for the parental leave was mainly that his wife had suffered from postpartum depression. The case concerned whether the employee had been subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex or disadvantaged in violation of the Parental Leave Act.
The Labor Court held that the employee had not been discriminated against since the employer’s decision was unrelated to the reason why the employee took parental leave. However, the Labor Court found that the employee had been disadvantaged due to his parental leave in violation of the Parental Leave Act. In its ruling, the Labor Court clarifies that the Employment Protection Act does not hinder an employer and an employee, in a situation where the issue of terminating the employee’s probationary employment has been raised due to the employee being absent from work during large parts of the probationary period, to agree to extend the probationary period with a period corresponding to the absence. [AD 2020 nr 53]
Cecilia Bergman, Associate
If you would like more information, or specific advice, please contact our L&E team.Back to news