Employment Law Newsletter

Hello,

In this employment law newsletter, we bring you the latest developments in the field. We hope you find it informative, and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or would like further information.

Best regards

Magnusson Law Firm

Since the turn of the year, several noteworthy rulings have been handed down in the field of employment law. During the first half of 2026, the Swedish Labour Court (Sw: Arbetsdomstolen) has issued a number of judgments reshaping the landscape in key areas – from whether an employer violates the GDPR by reading an extract from the criminal records register, to whether the duty to negotiate applies when entering into individual termination agreements at companies not bound by collective bargaining agreements.AD 2026 No. 27:

At the employer’s request, an employee handed over an extract from the criminal records register in a sealed envelope some time after commencing employment. The employer received and read it. The question was whether the employer had thereby processed the employee’s personal data in breach of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The Labour Court held that the employer had not processed personal data in breach of the GDPR. The employer had merely received and read the extract before destroying it, without entering the information into any system or register. Such handling does not constitute processing of personal data within the meaning of the GDPR, and the employer’s actions were therefore permissible.

The ruling clarifies that an employer’s reading of a criminal records extract obtained by the employee does not constitute processing of personal data within the meaning of the GDPR, provided that the information is not entered into a system, register or similar.

AD 2026 No. 24:

Under a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between SAS and the Swedish Pilots’ Association (Sw: Svensk Pilotförening), pilots are entitled to certain compensation if, according to a rolling schedule incorporated in the provision, they do not receive summer holiday. The compensation includes, among other things, additional holiday days and the possibility of scheduling a longer consecutive holiday in advance during the period from September to May.

The issue was whether a pilot who had not received any holiday during the summer was entitled to compensation under the provision, given that he had been on parental leave during part of the period.

SAS argued that a prerequisite for compensation was that the pilot had worked and been available for work throughout the entire summer. However, the Labour Court found that the provision imposed no such requirement of availability. Nor had any common intention of the parties or other circumstances been demonstrated to support a different interpretation. The Pilots’ Association’s interpretation therefore prevailed, and by failing to provide compensation, SAS had breached the collective bargaining agreement.

The ruling illustrates the Labour Court’s approach to interpreting collective bargaining agreements, beginning with the wording of the provision. The court found the wording to be clear and unsupportive of SAS’s position. SAS bore the burden of proving a common intention of the parties regarding the interpretation of the provision, and the Labour Court concluded that no such common intention had been proved.

AD 2026 No. 21:

A warehouse worker was summarily dismissed after operating a forklift at work and subsequently testing positive for amphetamine in a random drug test. The issue was whether there were lawful grounds for summary dismissal despite the low concentration of amphetamine detected in the saliva sample.

The Labour Court found the drug test to be reliable and established that the employee had intentionally used amphetamine. The court emphasised that forklift operation of the kind performed by the warehouse worker while under the influence of narcotics entails significant safety risks. To perform such work with narcotics in one’s system constitutes a serious breach of the obligations arising from the employment.

Against this background, the Labour Court held that there was legal basis for summary dismissal. The low concentration of amphetamine did not alter the assessment, as no testing methods are currently available to determine the degree of impairment caused by amphetamine.

The ruling demonstrates that even a very low concentration of amphetamine may constitute legal basis for summary dismissal, at least in occupations where working under the influence of narcotics entails significant safety risks.

AD 2026 No. 19:

The case concerned whether an employee of an insurance company had made unauthorised searches in the company’s customer management system and whether this could constitute grounds for summary dismissal or, alternatively, objective grounds for termination. The case also addressed whether the employee’s personal financial situation and enforcement debts constituted objective grounds for termination.

The Labour Court found that the searches had been unauthorised and that the conduct was blameworthy. In assessing the severity of the breach, the court concluded that there were insufficient grounds for summary dismissal, taking into account, among other things, the purpose of the conduct and the fact that it was an isolated incident. Neither the unauthorised searches nor the employee’s personal financial situation, considered separately or together, constituted objective grounds for termination. The summary dismissal was therefore declared invalid. However, as the employee’s conduct was particularly blameworthy, the general damages were set at a reduced amount, of SEK 50,000, than what is ordinarily awarded.

The ruling makes clear that, before taking measures such as dismissal or termination of employment on personal grounds, it is important to carefully assess both the seriousness of the breach of the employment contract and the employee’s purpose and intentions in acting as they did. The possibility of taking less intrusive measures, such as supportive measures, reprimands, warnings that the employment is at risk, and reassignment, should also be considered

AD 2026 No. 2:

The dispute concerned whether the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (Sw: Försäkringskassan) had legal basis for summarily dismissing an employee who was on full-time leave for trade union work. The employer alleged that the employee had incorrectly reported working hours and absences and had abused the authority’s so-called flextime system.

The Labour Court found that the employee had, on repeated occasions during a relatively short period, reported working hours and absences incorrectly. The conduct affected both the entitlement to salary and the Swedish Social Insurance Agency’s ability to monitor working hours, which the court considered a serious breach of trust.

The Labour Court further stated that a trade union representative is obliged to follow the same time-reporting rules as other employees and cannot report working hours on a standardised basis in breach of the authority’s flexitime agreement. Against this background, the Labour Court concluded that the employee had committed a serious breach of his obligations towards the employer and that there were therefore lawful grounds for summary dismissal.

The ruling is consistent with established case law regarding the high standards imposed on government employees both in and outside of work. In multiple rulings, the Labour Court has repeatedly emphasised that government employees must act correctly and with good judgement so as not to undermine public confidence.

AD 2026 No. 40:

A listed company not bound by a collective bargaining agreement needed to carry out redundancies. The company offered and entered into agreements with a number of employees regarding the termination of their employment. The issue was, among other things, whether the company had thereby breached Section 13, second paragraph, of the Co-Determination Act (Sw: medbestämmandelagen) by failing to initiate union negotiations before the agreements were concluded.

The Labour Court held that the company’s practice of inducing selected employees to accept the termination of their employment in exchange for severance pay constituted a measure within the meaning of the EU Directive on collective redundancies. The court further found that the company had breached the duty to negotiate under Section 13, second paragraph, of the Co-Determination Act by failing to request negotiations with the employers’ association on a matter concerning redundancy. The court also held that the company could not avoid this obligation on the ground that information about the redundancies constituted inside information.

The ruling demonstrates that an employer not bound by a collective bargaining agreement must request negotiations pursuant to Section 13 of the Co-Determination Act when redundancies may be carried out – even where the employer intends to offer termination agreements rather than proceed with formal dismissals.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.