Är behovsanställningar missbruk av visstidsanställning?
Sammanfattning: This paper first observes the historical background of the conflict surrounding fixed-term employment contracts and the legal history of the matter, focusing especially on the formal types of employment. Following that the critisism leveled at fixed-term contracts by trade unions is noted. The criticism concerns fixed-term contracts in general, and zero-hour contracts in particular. It is pointed out that by their very nature these contracts have a deleterious effect on employment security. Following that the method, purpose and query of this paper are formulated. The purpose is to, through legal analytics, determine whether the trade unions are right in their criticism. The second part describes the current forms of employment. They are listed with no partiucular ordering, explaining pre-requisites for using them and their purpose. Universal fixed-term contracts, the employment form most common for zero-hour contracts formally are, are given more space to explain their purpose and the details surrounding them. This is because it lack objective requirements that would normally reveal these. The third part is more speculative. It deals with the hypothetical situation where the relationship between employer and employee remains unregulated. Consequently, it also deals with the effects of current legislation. The conclusion reached here can be summarised by stating that the so-called § 32-prerogatives would be reinstated in such an enviroment due to the advantage held by employers when negotiating with prospective employees. This also explains the motivations behind abuse of fixed-term contracts. The fourth part seeks to define abuse of fixed-term contracts. A definition is reached by combining EU-law with swedish law. It has three components: repeated fixed-hour contracts, the motivations behind these repetitions, and a time limit beyond which no other motivations are valid. The fifth part reconnects the definition previously obtained to zero-hour contracts and reaches the conclusion that the similarities between trial period employment and zero-hour employment produce legal inconsistencies. This is because there are two time limits for employment types that are from a legal standpoint essentially the same, 6 months and 2 years. The sixth part is a short summary conclusion based on earlier parts that zero-hour contracts are not abuse of fixed-term contracts per se, but there is ample cause for suspecting abuse after 6 months in light of the inconsistency mentioned before.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)