Response to interpellation 2024/25:573 on unreasonable confidentiality agreements for 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 unreasonable confidentiality agreements for employees. S argues that confidentiality agreements in the restaurant industry are outrageous and an attempt by employers to exert great power over young employees 1. S is deeply concerned about a development where employers want to strengthen their power at the expense of wage earners 2 and is worried that a new generation of workers will become afraid to speak out about poor conditions 2. S argues that the policy must take a stand against a trend where employers increase control over employees 1 3. L argues that the labor market is regulated through legislation and collective agreements where employees have a duty of loyalty 4. L emphasizes that freedom of contract is limited by labor law principles 4 5. L emphasizes the employer's responsibility to be clear towards young people and stands behind the Swedish labor market model 5 6. L shares the commitment and considers these to be important issues that should be discussed further 7. L looks forward to an expanded legal practice in the area 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked the former Minister Paulina Brandberg how she and the government view the use of confidentiality agreements in industries such as the restaurant industry. He has further asked whether she and the government are prepared to take any measures to reduce the occurrence of unreasonable confidentiality agreements in the Swedish labor market. The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is now I who shall answer this interpellation.
Initially, I would like to thank Adrian Magnusson for the question. I truly share his commitment to a good working life and a good work environment, and particularly for workplaces where it is common for young people to have their first employment.
Regulations regarding working and employment conditions on the Swedish labor market are found in labor law legislation and collective agreements. An employee has a duty of loyalty towards their employer during their employment. When it comes to agreeing on confidentiality obligations or entering into so-called non-disclosure agreements, contract law rules and principles and general labor law principles set limits for freedom of contract. Ultimately, a court may, in an individual case, examine whether clauses in an agreement are unreasonable.
The Swedish labor market model gives the labor market parties – employer and employee organizations – significant scope to regulate, among other things, wages and employment conditions in industry-specific collective agreements without state intervention. Employee organizations can play an important role before an employment by providing advice and support to their members regarding the specific employment conditions that an employer sets for an employment.
When it comes to the right of the individual to belong to and utilize membership in their workers' organization, without being subjected to pressure or other unauthorized interference by the counterparty in the employment relationship, the legislation is clear. According to Section 8 of the Act (1976:580) on Co-determination in the Workplace, the right of association shall be left inviolate.
I also want to highlight in this context that the individual has the right to report on irregularities in a work-related context as specified in the so-called whistleblower law, the Act (2021:890) on Protection for Persons Who Report Irregularities. A reporting person can, according to that law, under certain conditions have protection in the form of immunity from liability if a duty of confidentiality has been breached.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Minister Larsson for the answer! I shall take the opportunity to congratulate her on her new role as Minister and welcome her here. I can promise that we will have reason to see each other here more often. I can assure the Minister of that.
We will now leave the initial formalities and move on to the interpellation answer itself.
This interpellation originates from the completely hair-raising reports about the hamburger chain Max that were reported a while ago, a month ago. They were reports about milkshakes stored in buckets, dishwashers containing toilet seats, and food kept on heating for several hours – reports that in themselves could merit their own interpellation.
But now that is not what we are to discuss. In the wake of these revelations, it emerged that all Max employees were forced to sign confidentiality agreements stating that they were not allowed to tell anyone anything about what they experienced at Max. They were not allowed to tell anyone anything – ever, furthermore. One can wonder what is so secret within a hamburger chain that one is not allowed to say even a word to one's partner, when eating dinner together in the evening, about what happened at work and that one is also not allowed to do so 65 years later.
This is outrageous. Now, we in this assembly do not constitute a court. But it sounds hardly like a reasonable confidentiality agreement that would hold up in a labor law review. What makes it particularly outrageous is that this type of employer is often the first employer for young people in the country. It is young people who have no experience or very little experience of work life and who simply do not know how to conduct themselves in a workplace or towards an employer. Their first experience of work life thus becomes that they are forced to sign an agreement which means they are not allowed to talk to anyone about their work.
In my opinion, this is an immense attempt by an employer to exercise very great power over its employees. It risks giving a very skewed picture of what power an employer has over its employees. It is a picture that these employees might have carried with them their whole lives if this had not been revealed.
The Minister's response is well-considered. It is an account of the legal situation rather than a submission from a political representative. That can be the case. But this type of flagrant violation of labor law is also an attack on the Swedish labor market model. If a party crosses all boundaries of what is considered right and proper, we have almost an order where it is the law of the jungle that prevails on the labor market and nothing else.
The Minister can, of course, not act as a court here today. I have not in my question demanded that the Minister should examine the reasonableness of the agreement, even though my personal opinion is quite clear. But it cannot be that the legislator, or for that matter the government, says neither yes nor no when such conditions are revealed. There are all the possibilities to strongly condemn this type of behavior, at least to send a political signal about how one wants it on the Swedish labor market.
A review of the current legislation is certainly always pleasant, but it is perhaps not what the young employees at Max need right now.
I am deeply concerned that we are seeing a trend in the Swedish labor market where employers are moving forward their positions and strengthening their power at the employees' expense. It would challenge the Swedish labor market model at its core if this accelerates. We politicians cannot, despite the construction of the Swedish labor market model, just stand aside and passively observe it.
Does the Minister really think it is reasonable that this type of confidentiality agreement is being written within the restaurant industry? If we see that this phenomenon spreads, is the Minister prepared to act in some way?
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! As a Minister, I cannot comment on the conditions in individual companies. Those questions must be addressed to the company's management.
Generally, I can say that employers have a great responsibility for the considerations that need to be made before a confidentiality agreement is entered into with an employee and that the content of such an agreement is not unreasonable. Rules on confidentiality and confidentiality agreements can exist in collective agreements and individual agreements with employees. Ultimately, a court can examine whether the content of a confidentiality agreement is unreasonable.
Contract law rules and principles and also general principles within labor law, such as good practice in the labor market as well as the Whistleblower Act, set limits on freedom of contract.
It was a very long time ago, but I worked at another hamburger chain in my youth, and even there were organized union representatives. It is a diversified restaurant industry that we see here.
I can state that individual cases can be examined by the court, and I look forward to whether that happens.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! As I touched upon at the end of my previous contribution, this is a trend that is spreading. In this case, we are talking about confidentiality agreements, and given what the Minister said, there is unfortunately very little case law regarding just confidentiality agreements. It is a question that has very rarely been tested in court, perhaps because employers have historically been quite cautious about drafting this type of confidentiality agreement.
Now we instead have a situation where one of the country's largest hamburger chains writes this with all its employees within an industry such as the restaurant industry, which could indicate that we are in some kind of shift in the view of what power employers consider they have over their employees.
Other such phenomena also occur. I am a lawyer myself and therefore know that there are law firms that write contracts with very junior lawyers, for example, stating that they are not allowed to change employers, something that has also been tested in court and has not always been judged to be correct, so to speak.
We also see a trend where more employers increase control over their employees, for example by equipping them with GPS pucks or by ensuring that they have to register themselves very often. We are not going to discuss that issue today, but we also have a development, not least within the gig economy, where it is seen that employees are monitored all the time.
This is, I would like to assert, a trend that leads to these ultimate consequences.
The Swedish labor market model, with an arrangement where the parties in many respects agree on the conditions in the labor market, has served Sweden well. I perceive that the Minister in his answer defends this model, which is welcome. I would not have expected anything else, but I welcome that the Minister does so.
If the situation is that one of the parties very actively challenges this model and tries to acquire much more power, there is however a risk that the labor market model will fail. The parties must take responsibility for the labor market model, and this also applies to the employer side.
It is also a matter of us politicians being prepared to stand up for the labor market model. If we were to see a situation where employers increasingly choose to take this type of measures or strengthen their power, the policy must be prepared to take a stand. This has also been done historically, among others within the gig economy sector, where political representatives have said that they consider this to be an unwelcome development.
Something else that is also interesting in this context is that we have a very high youth unemployment, up to 30 percent. In a situation where employers use these types of methods, there is a risk that all the rights and methods that the Minister enumerated, for example the whistleblower law, become ineffective, for who is prepared to risk this when one knows that there is a whole heap of other people out there who are prepared to take just that job that one has managed to get after quite a lot of effort?
We can, of course, say that one always has the right to speak with the union if one wishes and that there is no confidentiality agreement in the world that can destroy that, but if one has a situation with very high unemployment, the possibility of using that tool for the country's workers decreases.
I am deeply concerned about the development, and I truly hope that the government is prepared to act if it is seen that this development spreads. The Minister has further points to develop.
It would be very unfortunate if we get a situation on the Swedish labor market where the employers flagrantly and repeatedly challenge the spirit of consensus that has prevailed for a very long time.
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Employers need to be clear and explain in an understandable way what applies before an employment is entered into, and this is particularly important when it comes to hiring young people. The employer has a great responsibility for the balancing of interests that needs to occur before an agreement with an employee is reached and so that the content of a confidentiality agreement is not unreasonable.
I can also state that the question of whether confidentiality agreements are unreasonable in individual cases can be examined by a court. It is interesting that the questioner notes that there is a lack of case law in this regard, and it would also be interesting to hear the questioner's view on why that is.
The regulatory framework is based on the Swedish labor market model, a framework within which the parties in the labor market have great freedom to regulate the specific terms in collective agreements. I really want to assure the questioner that it is a model that I stand behind and that we shall together defend and continue to ensure that it flourishes.
I also want to mention that the Swedish Work Environment Authority inspects exactly young people's workplaces every year. During 2024, the Swedish Work Environment Authority inspected industries where it is common for young workers between 18 and 24 years old work. These included restaurants and fast-food outlets with up to 50 employees. The purpose was precisely to alert the employer to the importance of preventing and reducing risks for accidents and incidents, as well as to increase employers' knowledge about their work environment responsibility.
We are also awaiting what the investigation for the upcoming work environment strategy 2026–2030 will conclude. The investigation shall, among other things, analyze the impact of the currently applicable work environment strategy and the sub-goals that exist therein now. Under the sub-goal A sustainable working life, Arbetsmiljöverket has carried out targeted inspections for young people just entering the workforce. That investigation is to be reported later this year.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Initially: I believe I mentioned it in my contribution, but I can again answer the question of why I believe there is no practice regarding confidentiality agreements. I believe that employers historically have not been so eager to use confidentiality agreements, especially not in this type of industry.
Now we see, however, that it is spreading. It is not something I am merely engaging in anecdotal evidence regarding, but for example, LO-TCO Rättsskydd also says that this is spreading. One sees that confidentiality agreements occur in increasingly greater extent.
My hope is that labor organizations drive these cases where it is possible. My hope is also, of course, that employers stop using confidentiality agreements in industries where it can in some way be considered unreasonable, if one may put it that way. This applies to, for example, the restaurant industry, I would like to assert.
I welcome that the Minister is speaking with Arbetsmiljöverket. It is an important agency that can do much more. It is also an agency that has a rather large task right now, given the development we see regarding fatal accidents and injuries in working life. There is also another way, and that is to urge people to engage and organize themselves trade unionally. The unions can carry out much of the work that one sometimes wants to place on Arbetsmiljöverket, and the trade union representatives are also out in the operations daily.
I raised the issue because I, as I have said several times, am deeply concerned that we have a development in the Swedish labor market where employers want to move forward their positions and strengthen their power at the expense of ordinary wage earners and workers. If this happens in these types of industries, I am worried that we will get a new generation of workers who are terrified to speak to the media or anyone else about poor conditions because they believe that this is the norm. It is not the norm, and there should not be anyone who believes that it is. This is instead a phenomenon that I hope we will not see spreading in the Swedish labor market.
I thank the Minister for this debate. As I said at the beginning, we will probably have reason to return in other debates – perhaps on this issue, perhaps on other issues concerning the labor market.
Statsrådet Nina Larsson (L)
Madam Speaker! Initially, in my concluding remarks, I would like to thank Adrian Magnusson for the question. I truly share his commitment and consider these to be important issues. It is certainly something that we have reason to discuss further.
Adrian raised a specific example in his question. I cannot comment on individual companies. It is a matter that can be tested in court.
I believe we can come to see the same development in this area as regarding much else in our labor market, for example the staffing industry. The situation that initially prevailed there then developed into something really good. I look forward to an expanded legal practice arising in this area and that we then have it at our disposal.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.