Response to interpellation 2025/26:107 on the funding of the Labour Court
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that the Labour Court should conduct its activities efficiently and with good housekeeping according to the Budget Act 1 2. L argues that the court has a central role in the Swedish wage-setting model 3 and that the government intends to increase the appropriation credit for this year 4 3. L argues that the government has an ongoing dialogue with the court's management 1 2 and the labor market parties 3, and that the court should not have to postpone cases 3. S argues that the court is an important instance for the Swedish model and that the government should provide it with the economic conditions 5. S criticizes L for passivity 6 and believes that the Minister for Employment has a greater opportunity to achieve success in discussions than he himself 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.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me how I view the decision from the Labour Court to postpone the proceedings and whether I and the government will take any actions in light of the decision.
I would like to begin by thanking the member for the question.
The Labour Court adjudicates, as the highest instance, disputes to be handled according to the Act (1974:371) on the procedure in labour disputes. For several reasons, but not least from an employer and employee perspective, it is important that the court conducts its activities in an efficient manner and in accordance with current law.
Regarding the court's financial situation for the current year, the government is monitoring the situation and has an ongoing dialogue with the court's management. Provisions on the state's budget are among others in the Budget Act (2011:203), which also applies to the courts' operations. It is stated there that in the state's operations, high efficiency shall be pursued and good housekeeping observed. In all dialogue with the court, its independence in the judicial activities is taken into account, which is regulated in the constitution.
Regarding the situation for 2026, it is a matter that the government will return to in connection with the ordinary budget process.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Employment for the answer!
The interpellation has come about due to the news that the Labour Court is postponing all cases this autumn because of too low appropriations. It is news that I want to assert hit like a bomb in the labor law world when it arrived a few weeks ago.
The Labour Court is an incredibly important instance for the Swedish model and for maintaining order in the labor market. It is there that conflicts related to work are decided, and as is already known, the vast majority of us have a relationship to work in one way or another. Work takes up a large part of our lives and thus becomes a large part of our existence. This applies to the vast majority of us.
The Labour Court has, according to the court's chairman, informed the government through a letter dated March 19, 2025, that the allocation was insufficient. The court suggested that the government should provide additional funds – 6.6 million kronor. Instead, the court received 4.1 million kronor and a notice of a lower allocation than requested for 2026, where the court would receive 38.6 million kronor instead of the requested 40.8 million kronor. It was after that the court stated that they will not be able to hold any negotiations in the autumn but must cancel them and that they will therefore face a difficult situation in 2026 as well.
This announcement, which came from the Labour Court a few weeks ago, has been met with a storm of criticism from the parties and from other sides in the labor law world. There have simply been strong reactions.
The government has, through the Minister for Employment, spoken in various contexts about that they will provide grant credits for 2025. It is commendable, but the court has itself stated that this in itself is not enough. The only way to meet the frameworks, especially for 2026, is to lay people off – that is the message one receives from the Labour Court. There is simply too little money for 2026.
No notification has been received regarding what the frameworks will look like for 2026. The Minister for Employment also does not provide any such information in his answer today but refers to the regular budget process, even though the letter arrived on March 19, 2025. It has been more than half a year. There should have been plenty of time to both deliberate on the issue internally at the department and have a dialogue with the Labour Court. The dialogue that the Minister for Employment states has been had should have been able to be conducted during these nearly eight months since the letter arrived.
The Minister speaks in his answer regarding the independence of the courts. In various contexts, the Government also wishes to provide a picture of investing money in the justice system. In that case, one must remember that the Labour Court is also a part of this. The Labour Court must also have money to manage its operations. It is not enough to just talk about it, one must also carry out the words one utters.
I experience that there is at least a broad support for the Swedish model in this chamber, among all the parties in the Riksdag. The Minister for Employment has also not given any indication of anything else. But if one wants to safeguard it, one must also safeguard the instance that the Labour Court is, and then it is important that one gives the Labour Court the economic conditions that the court needs to carry out its operations.
And as I said: This is not a new notification that has reached the government, but the letter arrived in March 2025.
The grant credits might be able to save the operations for 2025. We shall see. They must be paid back later, which one must also remember. It is a credit. But what is the Minister for Employment doing to secure the Labour Court's operations for 2026, and when can we expect a concrete decision?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! When this news was discovered, many of us, just as Adrian Magnusson described, reacted very strongly. The Labour Court says that it has not received enough money to carry out its operations throughout the year. The consequence will be, as is clearly described, that cases and lawsuits will not be able to be handled, processed, and land in such a way as is needed. Instead, they are to be pushed into the future, into another operational year – where there are already other cases to be decided. Then I think, speaking of debts, that it may perhaps need to be compensated even for that, if cases are to be able to be processed and decided in the Labour Court.
When I hear the Minister for Employment's answer, I firmly believe that the Minister for Employment radiates a passivity and a lack of engagement regarding the issue that is striking. If one actually views the Labour Court as important, as part of the rest of the judiciary and as an important party in the labor market to maintain order and clarity and truly wants to do something about these consequences, we are talking about a few million.
The Minister for Employment says that he is following the issue, Mr. Speaker. Of course, it can turn out that for some reason it does not turn out completely right or exactly as intended when one has been at the ministry. That is something that can happen, and I have full understanding for that. But when one learns that the problem has arisen and that it has major consequences, one needs to sit down and do something about it, I think.
If we Social Democrats had sat in the ministry and received this, we would have acted. We would not have said: We follow the issue. We will see in upcoming budget processes. Here, it is a matter of taking responsibility – stepping in and ensuring that this extremely important, independent, law enforcement activity is given the conditions to be carried out.
Now the operations are decreasing. They are being discontinued. And the Minister for Employment has no more answers to give than: I follow the question. It is for me, Mr. Speaker, extremely remarkable. I become deeply concerned about whether there are other ambitions, or if the Minister for Employment has another agenda in wanting to cut down on the Employment Tribunal's operations.
I do not quite understand this. It costs both parties time, money, and suffering when nothing is settled and this is instead pushed into the future. I truly hope that the Minister for Employment in upcoming remarks can show less passivity and a bit more commitment and initiative in this matter.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! I can begin by assuring both the interpellator and the member that this government shares the same view, I believe, on the Swedish model of collective bargaining that the members represent. The Labour Court is a central part of that model.
The appropriation to the Labour Court has for several years been in line with this year's proposal in the budget bill, so also this year. This has applied during periods of both Social Democratic and bourgeois governments. In the autumn revision budget that has now been submitted to the Riksdag, it is proposed that the authority be allocated 4.1 million kronor from the Swedish Work Environment Authority's appropriation so that the authority can transition to a modern IT environment, this in addition to the proposal in the regular budget bill regarding appropriations that are in line with previous years.
As we are all aware and as I mentioned, there are provisions regarding the state's budget, among others in the Budget Act. This also applies to the courts' operations. It is stated there that the state's operations shall have high efficiency and good management. In all dialogue with the court, its independence in the judicial activity is also taken into account, which, as I mentioned earlier, is regulated in the constitution.
My view is that the court should not have to postpone any cases for economic reasons. We are not passive. An active dialogue is ongoing with the court management regarding the situation. Since it is an ongoing dialogue, I would, however, for several reasons, refer to the fact that that dialogue is ongoing with the authority and not in other forums.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! When this was discovered – or perhaps it is the wrong expression to use, but when the news came that the Labour Court would need to postpone cases during the autumn and that it had also received a too low appropriation for 2026, according to the court itself, the Minister for Employment was quite quick to say: We will ensure that no cases need to be postponed in the autumn. We will move forward with a proposal for an appropriation credit. I think the Minister now sounds a bit more vague when it comes to whether this really is a solution that will be usable.
The Minister refers to a dialogue with the authority. The Minister has also stated, in a written statement to the Riksdag in October, that the government's possibility of increasing the authority's appropriation credit during the current year is being investigated.
I think that the information given directly and the information that has been given later are somewhat different. It could be that the minister first thought the problem would be simpler to solve than it later turned out to be in dialogue with the Ministry of Finance, but I cannot answer that. It feels somewhat more vague now than before.
Both Member Amloh and I pointed out that the Labour Court has requested 40.8 million in appropriations for 2026, but has received 38.6. That is 2 million kronor in a state budget that contains a lot of money. We have not yet hammered out the budget in the chamber. The Minister refers to the Budget Act, but I would like to know a bit more specifically what makes it so that one cannot already say that we will resolve the situation for 2026. It is possible that there is some specific paragraph in the Budget Act that I am not familiar with, which constitutes an obstacle to why one cannot move forward with the proposal already now. But I would wish that the Minister, for the chamber and for those watching, explains more clearly what is the obstacle to why one cannot move forward with an increased appropriation of 2 million kronor already now. Instead, one must have a dialogue, wait, and follow a budget process.
As has already been said, we have not yet hammered out that expenditure area in the chamber, and therefore I think the issue should be able to be handled. Otherwise, the Riksdag must act. It would be an alternative for the parties that support the government in the chamber to act in the committee. The issue has been raised in question periods from members of the government base. There seems to be a commitment, but as usual, words must be followed by action.
Before I conclude the debate, I want to emphasize that there is a broad consensus among the parties that the issue is important. Recently, Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, TCO, Saco, and SKR issued a joint letter to the government stating that the issue must be resolved. They warned of the consequences if the Arbetsdomstolen does not receive the appropriations that have been requested, and that it could lead to people and companies having to wait longer for the processes decided in the Arbetsdomstolen.
I really hope that the issue is resolved immediately, but I request an explanation of what it is that prevents the government from proceeding right now with granting the 2 million kronor to the Labour Court.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Both in the response and in the debate with the Minister for Employment, there has been talk of good economic management. Yes, it is of course clear that the state's activities should engage in good economic management and that the activities should act efficiently. That is what we agree on. But I ask myself in what way the Minister for Employment considers it to be good management when no millions are provided so that the activity can be carried out, so that it does not come to a standstill. That is not good economic management. Instead, one should review whether it is possible to secure the millions required so that the court can carry out the important work that is needed for the Swedish labor market.
The Minister for Employment considers good management to be holding back on these funds, stopping the activity, and then letting the consequences occur. I return to the same question that Adrian Magnusson raised: Will this be rectified before we hammer out the decisions in the chamber? In that case, I promise to be one of the first to withdraw my claims regarding the Minister for Employment's passivity.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! The Government intends to make funds available to the authority through an increase in the appropriation credit for the current year. It is also a process that needs to be handled in accordance with what applies in our budget regulations.
The budget for 2026 is now on the floor of the Riksdag, and I do not want to anticipate the Riksdag's consideration of it.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! We can truly hope that the appropriation credit resolves the situation. I wish the Minister for Employment success in his discussions with the Ministry of Finance. I have heard that it is not always so easy, but I hope that the Minister has something good to put forward when he engages in dialogue with Finance Minister Svantesson and others at the Ministry of Finance.
Regarding the question of that the minister does not want to anticipate the Riksdag's consideration, I still hope that the minister has an ongoing dialogue with his colleagues from the government base who are sitting in the chamber. If one does not anticipate the Riksdag's consideration from the government's side, one can urge the members of the Riksdag from the government base to act on the issue. There is no formal obstacle for the members of the Riksdag from the government base to, for example, act in the Committee on the Labour Market through a motion stating that the Riksdag immediately wants the issue to be handled by the government. One can even put forward a proposal before the budget is to be considered.
I can try to conduct the dialogue with the members, but I believe that the Minister for Employment has a much greater opportunity to achieve success in the discussions with the chair and the members of the Employment Committee for the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and his own party, the Liberals.
I can conclude by asking whether we will see the Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna in the Committee on Industry and Trade act on the issue and do what the government does not want to do, namely that the Riksdag simply acts on the issue of the budget proposal.
Arbetsmarknadsministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is an important issue we have discussed today, and I thank again for the interpellation. The Labour Court's role in the Swedish wage-setting model – the Swedish model – is central. I want to assure the members who show such commitment to the issue, which I appreciate, that we are actively pursuing the dialogue.
I repeat that the government intends to increase the appropriation credit for this year. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the Labour Court should not have to postpone any cases.
I can also assure you that we have an ongoing and deep dialogue with the parties in the labor market even on this issue.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.