Rules on the suspension of state employees
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns rules for the dismissal of state employees. V believes that clarity is needed 1, but argues that the proposal weakens the right of trade unions to co-determination and risks leading to arbitrariness 1. V questions why there is a desire to bypass the Co-determination Act 2 3. M argues that the proposal fills a vacuum and gives state employers the same opportunities as private ones 4. M considers the proposal to be a reasonable balance with legal certainty guarantees 4 5 6. SD wants basic provisions to be in law 7 and argues that trade union organizations can cause delays 7. KD believes it is good that state employees receive a regulatory framework more equivalent to other parties 8. S argues that the proposal is well-balanced and serves the public interest 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! We shall now debate a committee report and a government bill concerning rules for the suspension of state employees. It concerns the introduction of a new possibility for state employers to temporarily suspend an employee from his or her work duties in situations where it is considered that the person is in a position that could lead to dismissal or discharge.
On the surface, this may appear to be a technical and rather innocent adjustment in the Act on Public Employment. But in reality, this concerns issues that go to the core of the Swedish model of industrial relations: legal certainty, trade union influence, and the state's responsibility as an employer.
Madam Speaker! The Left Party shares the view that clarity is needed. Today, there is no unified regulation for how the state may act in the event of a temporary shutdown. There are different procedures for the police, the defense, and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, but no general rule. It is reasonable that this gap is filled. It is important that both employers and employees know which rights and obligations apply.
But – and this is crucial – clarity must never become a pretext for giving the employer greater power at the expense of the individual's legal certainty.
The Government emphasizes that suspension should be able to occur quickly and without an obligation to negotiate according to the Co-determination Act. They argue that the employer must be able to act when the situation requires it. But, Madam Speaker, the employer can already do that today.
The Co-determination Act already contains exceptions that enable quick decisions in special circumstances. There is therefore no real obstacle to acting when the situation truly requires it. What the government is now proposing is, in practice, that the exception should become the rule. It is not a legally secure order.
Negotiating with the trade union organization before a decision as intrusive as a suspension is made is not a formality. It is a fundamental part of the legal protection for the employee.
It is about someone standing on the employee's side, someone who ensures that the decision has a factual basis and that proportionality is taken into account. Trade union involvement is not an obstacle to efficiency; it is a protection against arbitrariness.
Madam Speaker! The State is not just any employer. The State should be an exemplar. When the State makes decisions that affect individuals' employment, economy, and future, it shall be done in a way that is legally secure, transparent, and well-founded.
To introduce a general possibility for suspension, without clear requirements for negotiation and without a clear definition of what is meant by risk to the operations, opens up for precisely that which the state should protect its employees from, that is, arbitrariness and a lack of transparency.
We also know that labor law is based on balance. It is based on the employer having the right to lead and distribute the work while the employee has the right to protection against unreasonable and disproportionate decisions. That is why we have collective agreements, the Co-determination Act, and trade unions. This proposal upsets that balance.
Being dismissed from one's work is not a trivial matter. It is a very serious intervention in a person's life. It affects not only the employee's finances but also their reputation, work relationships, and future opportunities.
Even though the salary is to be retained in most cases, suspension is a signal, a kind of motion of no confidence from the employer. When the government now opens up for this to be able to occur before a proper review has been conducted and before any trade union dialogue has taken place, the protection for the individual is weakened.
We know that in practice there are often power imbalances in workplaces. We also know that the person who ends up in conflict with their employer often stands alone. Therefore, it is important that there are rules that ensure trade union oversight and participation.
The government says it wants to strengthen legal certainty. But legal certainty does not arise by saying: Trust the employer! Legal certainty arises through the existence of rules, processes, and transparency.
It is not about mistrust towards the employer – I want to be clear about that – but it is about the principles of the rule of law. The one who makes a decision must be able to show that the decision is well-founded, proportionate, and objective. It is also a security for the employer. Introducing a possibility for suspension without a requirement for union negotiations risks creating more conflicts, more legal proceedings, and more uncertainty.
Madam Speaker! The Left Party therefore shares the ambition to create clear and legally sound rules. But we believe that the bill is deficient in several respects: it weakens the right of trade unions to participate in decision-making, it risks leading to arbitrariness, and it lacks clear guarantees for proportionality and transparency.
We therefore consider that the government should have taken a different path, a path based on respect for the Swedish model of industrial relations, on consultation with the trade union organizations, and on a clearer regulation of the rule of law aspect.
Madam Speaker! When the state suspends a person from work, even temporarily, it must be done with the utmost caution. It is a measure that requires legally secure processes, trade union involvement, and clear grounds. We must never create a system where loyalty and trust are replaced by fear and silence – where suspension becomes an easy way to handle "problems" instead of a well-founded last resort.
Madam Speaker! I want to move for approval of reservation 1 in the report. Vänsterpartiet says yes to clarity and yes to legal certainty, but we say no to weakened co-determination rights. We say that the state shall be an example as an employer – not a role model when it comes to stretching the limits of employees' rights.
Mats Arkhem (SD)
Madam Speaker! New times require new laws and rules. Society is changing, and thus regulations and regulatory frameworks must also change. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet respectively.
There has been a lack of a general and clear regulation regarding the suspension of state employees. Basic provisions on the legal status of state employees should be contained in law. There are provisions in the Act on Public Employment, LOA, which state that the state, if deemed necessary for the country's best interest, may remove employees within the police, foreign affairs, and certain defense authorities from their duties, but otherwise, there is a lack of legal rules regarding the suspension of state employees. This is a deficiency that we are now correcting through this bill.
According to the bill, an employee may be suspended if he or she has behaved in a manner that can be assumed to lead to dismissal and there is a concrete risk that continued work will damage the trust in the authority, hinder the proper functioning of the operations, or complicate the ongoing investigation.
I have read the petitions from the Left Party and the Green Party. I cannot quite agree with their concerns regarding arbitrary decisions because a state employer must always follow the principles of objectivity and impartiality as well as the principle of proportionality. On the other hand, one can harbor concerns that a negotiation where more parties – trade union organizations – are included can create delays in matters that must be handled urgently.
These potential suspensions will, of course, not be decided by any individual politician or official in a leadership position, but by the Riksdag's Responsibility Committee, which decides on disciplinary responsibility, indictment, and suspension according to the Act on Public Employment, as well as on dismissal according to the Act on Employment Protection when it concerns employees to be employed by decision of the Riksdag Board and other employees determined by this board.
The committee consists of a chairman, a vice-chairman and three other members. The chairman and the vice-chairman shall be lawyers and have experience as judges. It is the Riksdag Board that issues instructions to the committee and appoints its members.
An employee who is suspended shall retain their salary and other employment benefits during the suspension. The regulations on damages shall be applied if an authority violates the regulations. If the employee is a union member, the employer shall immediately notify the local union to which the employee belongs of the decision, and the union has the right to consultation with the employer regarding the decision on suspension.
Oliver Rosengren (M)
Madam Speaker! One of the public administration's most important assets is trust. Citizens must be able to rely on authorities acting impartially, objectively, and with respect for the rule of law.
When or if that trust is at risk, the state must have tools to be able to act. That is the purpose of this legislation.
Our proposal fills an obvious vacuum. It is about the fact that state employers, unlike private ones, do not have the possibility to dismiss employees even if there are objective reasons to question the suitability of remaining in service. This proposal means that they shall be given that possibility.
Madam Speaker! This is not about undermining the rule of law, on the contrary. According to the proposal, suspension may only occur if there is a clear connection between the employee's behavior and the risk that trust in the authority will be damaged or other equivalent problems.
The grounds must be something that has led to or can lead to dismissal or removal. It is a high threshold. There is in no way a risk of arbitrariness.
The legal certainty guarantees that also accompany the proposal – time limits, the possibility of interim review, and damages in the event of formal errors – further strengthen the legal certainty in the proposal.
Madam Speaker! This is not just an administrative detail. It is, on the contrary, a measure to safeguard the important trust upon which our democratic administration rests. It is about giving state employers the same opportunities as private ones while simultaneously preserving legal certainty fully in order to nurture and safeguard the legitimacy and trust for the state administration.
Therefore, I want to propose that we stand behind the committee's proposal, and I want to move for its approval.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Oliver Rosengren, for your brief speech!
It would have been good if Oliver Rosengren had used a little more time to actually explain and defend why, from the government's side, it is argued that trade union oversight would be an obstacle. If one is conspiratorial, one could see it as a clever way to take a small step away from the Swedish model of cooperation.
Oliver Rosengren says that we must be able to do this when there are quick decisions. But this is not an obstacle in everyday life. There are still regulations in the Co-determination Act that make it possible to do what Oliver Rosengren says.
Above all, there is a suspicion of the social partners – that they would delay or stall processes. We have seen during many different crises that this is not the case at all. It is not that the trade union organizations would always in some way delay or stall a decision just for the sake of it. There can actually be very good reasons for a suspension and a dismissal. In that case, a trade union organization will not think it is wrong. But this is about our model of social partnership and how we think it should function. It must function for state employees as well. The state must be a role model in these issues. Why would other employers care about the model of social partnership at all if not the state needs to?
Oliver Rosengren (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Weidby, for the question!
This is, of course, about a balance and about ensuring that the right point in that balance is found. We believe that the proposal that is now on our table, which includes, among other things, both an obligation of intelligence and the possibility of deliberation, is a reasonable placement when it comes to such a balance.
There are legal certainty guarantees: limitation in time, the possibility of interim review, and furthermore the right to compensation if formal errors occur. On top of that, there is this intelligence obligation, and on top of that is this matter of deliberation. It is a sufficient and adequate protection for legal certainty and for the skilled employees in the state administration. It protects them so that they do not end up in an incorrect situation. What we are looking for with this is to reach those who do not function and who do not do what is intended to be done in one's work if one works in the state administration.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! Oliver Rosengren may misunderstand me – deliberately or unconsciously. Vänsterpartiet does not mean that there cannot be reasons to dismiss people. That is absolutely possible.
We are for it because it creates clarity, but one must know what constitutes a bad or a risky behavior. We don't really know what it is. It becomes arbitrary when we are not told in advance, when one simply cannot test it or at least receive an argument.
If it is as Oliver says, that there are very many things that work already today, I wonder: Why should one bypass this? Why should one abolish the reporting obligation according to MBL? Why can one not let this remain? One can absolutely make clarifications on what applies. But why must one bypass MBL in this way? I do not understand this, and many trade union organizations agree with me. This is very easily handled.
Please help me, Oliver Rosengren, so that I can release my conspiratorial thoughts that one slowly but surely wants to find ways to bypass the co-determination act even in other areas!
Oliver Rosengren (M)
Madam Speaker! I hope that it is not, so to speak, beyond saving to be able to help you, Ciczie Weidby, so that you do not have conspiratorial thoughts regarding this. You have to decide that yourself. But we stand up for the Swedish model. We believe in the labor market parties. We know that this gives us a stronger labor market and a better functioning protection for both employees and employers. That it gives us growth, productivity, and all those things that we usually discuss in this chamber is important.
In every decision, one must try to find the most expedient solution. In this case, we have landed on that this is the model, that is, legal certainty guarantees linked to interim reviews and so on, and on top of that, intelligence obligation and the possibility of deliberation. It is a reasonable and balanced point to position oneself on in a spectrum of different choices that could have been made, even though it is obvious that the member thinks one should have made a different choice.
Madam Speaker! This proposal represents a reasonable and balanced point, and one does not need to make it part of some larger conspiracy regarding how the labor market should develop. Our support for the labor law we have in Sweden is solid and will not be changed by how we make decisions in this legislation.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The basis for Swedish labor market policy is that we all honor the Swedish model, which means that we avoid special laws and to a large extent leave it to the parties in the labor market to handle different rules, benefits, and obligations in the labor market. Therefore, it is good that the government is now moving forward with legislation where state employees receive a regulatory framework more equivalent to the regulatory frameworks of other parties.
The Government notes that employers in the private labor market can dismiss an employee with the support of the right of management. This possibility does not exist for state employers.
The Government considers that it must be possible to suspend state employees in situations that can lead to termination of employment. There are already today provisions to immediately remove employees within the police force, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and certain defense authorities from their duties if it is necessary for the country's best interests. Corresponding rules do not exist for other state employees, and here a legal regulation regarding the suspension of state employees is lacking. The Government therefore considers that a regulation in law needs to be introduced which entails an expanded possibility to suspend state employees.
Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats share this view, because it is important that the state can also act if any individual employee acts in an incorrect manner. It is also fundamentally important that everyone in the labor market is treated based on equal laws and rules.
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! What is Sweden's greatest asset? What is it that we cannot do without? When one reads political science research, it becomes quite clear that it is trust. It is the interpersonal trust, but it is also the trust between people and public institutions.
This is deeply rooted in Swedish history, in our social model, in the social development we have had since Sweden's democratization in the beginning of the 1900s. People think well of the state. People trust the state and that the state wants well. That trust allows Sweden to develop. That trust can lead to us having the conditions to solve our social problems, because the common good is something good in our country.
We Social Democrats will always fight to ensure that it continues to be so. There is no doubt that the trust in our society is under attack in many different ways and from many different sides. If we want a strong society and a strong sense of community, we must do what we can to maintain trust in the public institutions.
What we are dealing with today concerns a small part of this issue. People must be able to trust the state. Then, unsuitable persons should not be the state's representatives. If there are grounds to get rid of a state employee because they have acted in conflict with what must be followed, the state must also be able to maintain the citizens' trust by having the possibility to bar that person from their service.
This must take place in an orderly, fair, and legally secure manner and with respect for the principles that apply in Swedish labor law. We have had a development in Sweden since the beginning of the 90s where state labor law has increasingly come to resemble the labor law that applies generally on the labor market. We have continued the Act on Public Employment, but we see that there are more and more similarities between the terms of employment in the state and the terms of employment in the private or municipal sector. This is fundamentally something good. There are still reasons to have specific rules regarding state employment, and that is why we retain that legislation.
We Social Democrats believe that the proposal currently before the Riksdag is well-balanced. It serves the public interest and is based on what should apply in Swedish labor law relations.
We heard earlier in the debate that the bill does not respect the parties' model. But in the summary in the report, we see very clearly that the government has actually considered the referral comments received and come up with a solution. It is indeed said that the duty to negotiate shall not be applied before a decision on suspension due to the conditions that normally apply in such cases, but here the proposal has been adjusted. If the employee is unionized, the employer shall be obliged to notify the employee organization to which the employee belongs about the suspension. It does not stop there either, but it is also stated that the employee organization shall also have the right to consultation with the employer.
This is with respect for the Swedish model of industrial relations. It is well-balanced, and therefore we support the committee's proposal in the report.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am going to do something that is perhaps not so common here in the chamber, namely thank Member Ardalan Shekarabi for a very good speech. It touches me greatly when the Member speaks about the development of society and the feeling in society. The question of trust is a big and important question.
I also want to thank you for another thing. When we make big changes, even if it is sometimes in the small details, it is important that there is a great consensus. Therefore, I just want, Madam Speaker, to take the opportunity to say thank you for a good speech. I am very happy that we are so united here in the chamber!
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Jacobsson for this.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.