AD 2026 No. 3 – The employer had the burden of proving the authenticity of the termination document

The employer claimed that an employee had resigned himself and signed a written notice of termination. The employee disputed this and claimed that the document was forged. The Labour Court found that the employer had not made it predominantly likely that the document was genuine, and the employee was therefore considered to have been terminated without legal grounds.

The employee was employed by a company as a supervisor/painter. According to the company, the employee resigned voluntarily at a meeting with the employer and signed a handwritten notice of termination in duplicate. The employee denied that any document had been drawn up and claimed that he had not signed a notice of termination and that the document relied on by the company was forged. Instead, the employee claimed that disagreements had arisen in connection with a discussion about the employee’s salary, and that the company had urged him to resign, which he refused.

The Labour Court initially stated that the legal starting point is that if an employer claims that an employee has resigned himself by means of a signed document, and the employee objects that the document is forged, the employer has the burden of proving that the document is genuine. In doing so, the employer must make it predominantly likely that the document is genuine. The company presented the original dismissal document at the main hearing, and the document had also been sent for analysis by the Swedish National Forensic Centre (NFC). Despite this, the court did not consider that the company had made it predominantly likely that the document and signature were genuine. Since the company could not prove that the employee had resigned himself, the employee was considered to have been wrongfully terminated by the company. The Labour Court declared the termination invalid.

Setterwalls’ comment:

The court case underlines the importance of careful documentation at the end of the employment. When an employee objects to a termination document being forged, the employer has the burden of proving the authenticity of the document and must make it “predominantly likely” (on the balance of probabilities) that the signature is the employees. Although the standard of proof is lower compared to normal rules of evidence, it was not sufficient for the company to be able to produce the original document. In light of this, we recommend that employers ensure that they have reliable evidence when an employee resigns. This can be in the form of a witness, i.e. an independent person (e.g. HR), being present when documents are signed, or by allowing the employee to confirm the termination via email or digital signature.