AD 2025 No. 50 – Who bears the burden of proof when a signature on a resignation is alleged to be forged?

A hair salon claimed that a hairdresser had resigned voluntarily. The hairdresser argued that the resignation document (signed on an iPad) presented by the employer was forged and that, in reality, the hairdresser had been dismissed without cause. The Labour Court held that, in such a situation, the employer bears the burden of proof that the document is genuine, but with a reduced standard of proof (“more likely than not”).

Background

A hairdresser had been employed at a hair salon since August 2023. The dispute concerned events that occurred in the spring of 2024. According to the employer, the situation was as follows: On 26 March 2024, the employee, at his own request, entered a new fixed-term employment agreement valid until 8 April 2024. He then resigned on 28 March 2024, with his last working day being 8 April 2024. The employer then initiated the signing of a resignation document at the salon, witnessed by two customers. Thereafter, the employee applied for vacation for the remainder of the employment period, which was granted.

The union had a completely different view of the situation. The employee had not entered any fixed-term employment agreement or resigned. On the contrary, the documents presented by the employer were alleged to be forged. The employer had told the employee to go home and take vacation, and when he returned to the salon to work on 8 April 2024, he was informed that his employment had ended. Thus, the employee had been dismissed. The union therefore sought to have the dismissal declared invalid and claimed damages of SEK 250,000 and compensation for unpaid wages.

Legal framework

The Labour Court noted that, according to previous case law, when an employer claims that an employee has resigned by signing a written resignation document that can be produced in original, and it is alleged that the document is forged, the employer bears the burden of proof that the document is genuine. The employer must show that it is more likely than not that the document is genuine – a lower standard of proof than generally applies in civil cases. The Labour Court then stated that the same reduced standard of proof should apply in a situation like the present one, i.e., when the signing of the written resignation document was done on an iPad and the electronic document was presented.

The Labour Court’s assessment

The Labour Court found that the employer, supported by the testimony of the two customers who witnessed the signing, had shown that it was more likely than not that the employee had signed the resignation document and thus resigned voluntarily. The Court did note that the union’s version of the overall sequence of events appeared more plausible than the employer’s (that the employee would resign effective 8 April 2024, having just signed a fixed-term agreement until that date, did not seem likely to the Court). However, since the employer had shown that it was more likely than not that the employee had actually signed the resignation document, this, according to the Court, was irrelevant. The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the witnesses, who were customers with no connection to the employer, consistently stated that they were present in the salon during the event and saw the employee sign a document.

The Court therefore found that the employee had ended his employment voluntarily. The union’s claim, based on the assertion that the employee had been dismissed, was rejected.

Read the full judgement here.

Setterwalls’ comments

Although the Court found that certain aspects of the employer’s account of the events were less plausible than the union’s, this was outweighed by the independent witness testimony that the resignation document had been signed by the employee. The case highlights the importance of evidence in disputes regarding voluntary resignation. The judgment shows that it is wise to document resignations carefully, especially in cases where there have been conflicts. An alternative to having witnesses confirm that the resignation was signed by the employee, as in this case, is to use a digital signing service where the employee identifies themselves with Bank-ID and the employer receives written confirmation clearly stating the date and time of the signing.