Sanktioner vid felaktig uppsägning eller avskedande - En komparativ studie av arbetstagarens rättigheter i Sverige och Danmark

Sammanfattning: The purpose of this dissertation is to compare and analyse sanctions for unfair dismissal in Sweden and Denmark. In Sweden the rules concerning employment protection are found in the Employment Protection Act of 1982. According to the act (section 7) dismissals shall be based on objective grounds. In Denmark the most important rules of employment protection can be found in the Basic LO/DA Collective Agreement. Section 4(3) stipulates that dismissals must be based on reasonable grounds relating to the employee or the company. An equivalent provision regarding employees covered by the White-Collar Workers Act can be found in section 2b of the act. According to general principles of administrative law public employees are also protected against unfair dismissals. The sanctions within the employment protection in Swedish law are nullity and damages. There are three types of damages&semic compensation for financial loss, compensation for non-economical injury, and compensation for non-compliance with a court decision. The sanctions within the employment protection in Denmark are, similar to the Swedish system, nullity and damages. However, there is only one type of damages, which contains compensation for both financial loss and non-economical injury. The main difference between the Swedish and the Danish sanctions is the rules concerning nullity. In Denmark unfair dismissal may be declared null and void only if it is supported by a collective agreement. Nullity is rarely used and used only if the cooperation between the employee and the company has not been seriously damaged. In Sweden nullity plays a bigger and more important part. Nullity in combination with compensation for non-compliance with a court decision is an important element, strengthening employment protection against unfair dismissals. In the light of the sanction rules the Danish employees receive a weaker protection against unfair dismissals compared to the Swedish employees. The reasons here fore are the lack of equivalence to the Swedish rules concerning compensation for non-compliance with a court decision, but also the levels of compensation. One way to strengthen employment protection in this aspect is to increase the levels of compensation which would probably lead to the damages having a greater preventive effect.