Dismissal for personal reasons and dismissal have several similarities in the way the process is handled. In both cases, the process starts with the employer sending a written notification to the employee and his\/her trade union of the intended action. The difference lies in the timeframes:<\/p>\n
During this period, both the trade union and the employee have the right to request consultations, and the employer may not carry out the dismissal or dismissal until the consultations have been completed.<\/p>\n
It is not always easy to decide whether a dismissal is for personal reasons or whether it is a dismissal. Dismissal is used when the employee has grossly neglected his or her duties towards the employer. This can include serious offenses in the workplace or deliberate competition with the employer.<\/p>\n
A dismissal on personal grounds requires that there is factual reasons<\/strong>, under the Employment Protection Act (LAS). Determining whether there are objective reasons is one of the most central issues in labor law. Therefore, employers should always consult legal experts before making a decision to dismiss.<\/p>\n According to 7 \u00a7 LAS<\/strong> a dismissal is not objectively justified if it is reasonable for the employer to redeploy the employee to another post. However, if the employer has already tried to redeploy the employee without success, this does not have to be done again.<\/p>\n It is important to note that dismissal or redundancy for personal reasons never<\/strong> may be based on discriminatory factors under the Discrimination Act<\/strong>. This includes:<\/p>\n According to Sections 7 and 18 of the LAS, the employer must act within two months of becoming aware of the event on which the dismissal on personal grounds is based. If the employer waits longer than two months, the dismissal cannot be based on that specific event.<\/p>\n It is important to clarify that the redeployment obligation only applies if there is a vacancy for which the worker is qualified. The employer is not obliged to create a new post or give the worker a post for which he or she is not qualified. In addition, the employer does not have to offer redeployment if a previous attempt has already been made without success.<\/p>\n In the case of dismissal for personal reasons, the employer has the burden of proving that there are objective reasons. In the case of dismissal, the employer must be able to show that the employee has grossly neglected his or her duties. It is therefore important that the employer documents all relevant incidents and actions taken during the employment, such as warnings and reprimands.<\/p>\n The following are the reasons for judgment from a 2011 case in the Labor Court concerning the dismissal of a diocesan lawyer where the employer considered that the employee had mismanaged his duties.\u00a0JUDGMENT<\/strong>General conditions for dismissal or termination for personal reasons<\/i>\u00a0According to Section 18, first paragraph <\/a>The Employment Protection Act allows dismissal if the employee has grossly neglected his or her duties towards the employer. The dismissal measure, i.e. the immediate termination of an employment relationship by the employer, is aimed at really serious offenses by an employee. These are procedures which should not reasonably be tolerated in any legal relationship. One question that the court has to decide in the case is thus whether S.R. can be considered to have grossly neglected his obligations to Karlstad diocese.The fact that there were no valid grounds for dismissal does not automatically lead to the dismissal being declared invalid. As stated in Section 35, first paragraph <\/a>the Employment Protection Act, a declaration of invalidity can only be given if the dismissal took place in circumstances that would not even have been sufficient for a valid dismissal. According to the 7 \u00a7<\/a> The Employment Protection Act requires that the employer's dismissal be objectively justified. A dismissal is not objectively justified if it is reasonable to require the employer to find another job for the employee, i.e. to redeploy the employee. This provision applies both when there is a shortage of work and when the employer is considering dismissing an employee because of his or her personal circumstances. The assessment of whether the circumstances can be considered to have been sufficient for a valid dismissal must be made from essentially different starting points than the assessment of whether dismissal could have taken place. The latter measure is typically aimed at individual events in the form of gross violations of the employee's obligations as an employee. In the dismissal case, on the other hand, the review should focus more on the conclusions about the employee's continued suitability that can be drawn from what has occurred (prop. 1973:129 p. 124 f.<\/a>, cf. prop. 1981\/82:71 s. 65<\/a>). This is also where the issue of relocation comes in (AD 1996 No 82<\/a>Only in the event of clearly documented unsuitability is the requirement for objective grounds considered to be fulfilled. When assessing whether there are objective grounds for dismissal, the length of employment is important. A person who has been employed for a very short time may, according to the 7 \u00a7<\/a>cannot claim the same level of employment protection as those who have worked for the employer for several years. The employer has the burden of proving that there was a lawful reason for dismissal or just cause for dismissal.An employee may misconduct his or her work in various ways. Misconduct may include unauthorized absence or late arrival, inappropriate conduct, negligence in the performance of assigned duties, breach of rules of order, etc. The Labour Court has repeatedly emphasized that an employer who is considering dismissal due to misconduct is normally required to first make it clear to the employee in an unambiguous manner that his employment is in danger and to give the employee the opportunity to seek to rectify the alleged deficiencies in the light of such an unambiguous message. On the other hand, there are examples of cases where the Labor Court has found the situation to be such that the requirement for a warning\/notice of termination was considered to have been outdated. The Labor Court has (AD 2002 No 58<\/a>) stated the following. \"The requirements which may be imposed on an employer to warn the employee before dismissal and to remind him that his employment is at risk as a result of his conduct should, of course, also depend on what the employee has been guilty of. Particularly stringent requirements should not be imposed if the employee has repeatedly and seriously disregarded his basic and obvious obligations under the employment contract and the employer has not given the employee reason to assume that the employer accepts the employee's behavior.\" In an employment relationship, the employee is required to be loyal to the employer. The loyalty requirement is part of the employment contract. The basic point is that the employee must not harm the employer. The employment relationship establishes obligations that go beyond what applies in contractual relationships in general; they are additional to the performance of the work itself and could therefore be characterized as secondary obligations. The employee is obliged in certain situations to put the employer's interest before his or her own and to avoid situations where he or she may come into a conflict of duties (see Folke Schmidt, L\u00f6ntagarr\u00e4tt, 1994, pp. 257 et seq. AD 1993 No 18<\/a>The Labour Court's case law is based on the assumption that an employee must have the knowledge and skills required by the position, but also that the employee is obliged to use his or her skills, i.e. to do his or her best. Termination can only take place for such reasons if the employee's performance is significantly below what the employer could normally have expected or if the employee's shortcomings cause the employer significant inconvenience.<\/p>","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","mpcs-curriculum-categories":[],"mpcs-curriculum-tags":[],"class_list":["post-12546","mpcs-lesson","type-mpcs-lesson","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewlex.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mpcs-lesson\/12546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewlex.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mpcs-lesson"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewlex.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/mpcs-lesson"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewlex.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"mpcs-curriculum-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lewlex.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mpcs-curriculum-categories?post=12546"},{"taxonomy":"mpcs-curriculum-tags","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lewlex.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mpcs-curriculum-tags?post=12546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Factual reasons<\/h4>\n
Factors influencing the court's assessment of the merits:<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
The two-month rule<\/h4>\n
The dismissal\/resignation takes place in two stages<\/h4>\n
\n
Notice period in case of dismissal versus dismissal<\/h4>\n
\n
Reallocation<\/h4>\n
Burden of proof<\/h4>\n
Practice<\/h4>\n