Article | 22 June 2026
Labour Law News – June 2026
In the latest newsletter from Setterwalls’ employment law group, you can read about case law and recent legislative changes that may have significant implications for your business.
Among other things, you can read about current case law from the Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen) as well as an update on the implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive.
CASE LAW OF THE LABOUR COURT
AD 2026 No. 40 – Obligation to negotiate under the Co-determination Act in the case of individual agreements
The court case concerned whether an employer without a collective agreement had breached the duty to negotiate under section 13, second paragraph, of the Co-determination Act by entering into agreements on the termination of employment with a number of employees without first calling for negotiations on redundancy due to a shortage of work. The court found that agreements initiated by the employer on the grounds of redundancy should be regarded as dismissals within the meaning of the EU Directive on collective redundancies, and that the employer was under a duty to negotiate as soon as it became clear that redundancies were being considered or planned. The case also concerned whether the employer, separately from the obligation to negotiate, was obliged to inform trade unions not party to a collective agreement of the reasons for the planned redundancies under Section 19a of the Co-determination Act. The court also addressed the question of how the rules in the Market Abuse Regulation concerning the handling of inside information affect a listed employer’s obligation to provide information to a trade union.
AD 2026 No. 26 and AD 2026 No. 38 – The duty to provide information under Section 19a of the Co-determination Act
In two recent rulings, the Labour Court has clarified the meaning of the duty to provide information under Section 19a of the Co-determination Act. In both cases, the Court stated that the duty to provide information does not entail an obligation to provide information at fixed times or for periods during which no specific events have occurred or decisions affecting trade union members were pending. One of the rulings, AD 2026 No. 38, also addressed the questions of whether the duty to provide information entails an obligation on the employer to respond to specific questionnaires from a trade union, and whether the employer’s failure to amend draft negotiation minutes constituted a breach of the duty to negotiate under Section 15 of the Co-determination Act. The employees’ claims were dismissed in both cases.
AD 2026 No. 19 and AD 2026 No. 42 – The Labour Court declares summary dismissals invalid following unauthorised access to the employer’s IT systems
In two court cases, AD 2026 No. 19 and AD 2026 No. 42, the Swedish Labour Court has examined the question of whether there are grounds for summary dismissal when an employee has gained unauthorised access to the employer’s IT system. In both cases, the Labour Court found that there were special circumstances or distinctive conditions, and concluded that there were no grounds for summarily dismissing the employee.
AD 2026 No. 21 – Positive drug test sufficient grounds for summary dismissal
A warehouse worker, whose duties included operating a forklift truck, was summarily dismissed after testing positive for amphetamine in a random drug test carried out during working hours. The Labour Court found that there were valid grounds for summary dismissal.
AD 2026 No. 23 – The 2015 agreement on non-competition clauses does not cover non-solicitation clauses
The 2015 agreement on the use of non-competition clauses in employment contracts between the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv) and the Council for Negotiation and Cooperation (PTK) does not cover non-solicitation clauses. This applies regardless of how extensive or restrictive of competition the clauses may be considered to be, and regardless of their ultimate purpose, and despite the fact that the poaching of customers for a competing business, in a sense, constitutes engaging in such business. Since the agreement does not apply to non-solicitation clauses, its other provisions – in this case, the arbitration clause – are also not applicable in the event of a dispute concerning a contractual penalty for breach of such a clause.
AD 2026 No. 27 – Simply receiving and reading a criminal record extract does not fall within the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation
In this case, the Labour Court considered whether an employer’s receipt and reading of a criminal record extract constituted processing of personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). At the employer’s request, an employee submitted an extract from the criminal records register, which the employer subsequently reviewed. The Labour Court ruled that the mere act of receiving and reading the extract did not constitute processing of personal data as covered by GDPR; consequently, the employer could not be regarded as having processed personal data in breach of GDPR.
AD 2026 No. 29 – Summary dismissal of a civilian administrator at the Police Authority convicted of aggravated drink-driving and gross negligence in traffic declared invalid
A civilian administrator at the Police Authority was summarily dismissed after being convicted of aggravated drink-driving and gross negligence in traffic. In connection with the offences, the administrator had also made statements to witnesses and police officers regarding their employment with the authority. The Labour Court declared the summary dismissal invalid and found that there were not even objective grounds for termination, partly because the offences had been committed outside the scope of the employment, were linked to an alcohol dependency of a medical nature, and could reasonably be regarded as a one-off incident.
AD 2026 No. 32 – Was the scope of the notice sufficiently clear?
A trade union gave notice to an employers’ organisation of a solidarity action in the form of a blockade against all waste handling associated with a company, at eleven specified addresses where the company carried out its operations. The dispute centred on whether the scope of the industrial action was unclear and whether the trade union had therefore breached Section 45 of the Co-determination Act. The court found that the notice was not unclear with regard to the scope of the industrial action announced, and the claim was dismissed.
AD 2026 No. 39 – Discrimination/accessibility – objective grounds in cases of incapacity for work
The Labour Court found that the Prison and Probation Service had objective grounds for terminating a prison officer who, due to a disability, lacked the capacity to work in their role. The court considered that it was not reasonable to require the employer to offer the employee a full-time position and subsequently adapt it to part-time work. Consequently, the employee had not been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of lack of accessibility either.
NEWS FROM THE LEGISLATOR
Status of implementation of the Pay Transparency Directive
The Pay Transparency Directive was due to be transposed into Swedish law by 7 June 2026 at the latest. However, as we reported in our previous newsletter, the government announced earlier this spring that implementation of the directive would be postponed. The government had been pushing for a renegotiation of the directive, but on 22 May 2026, the European Commission announced that it did not intend to include the Pay Transparency Directive in any future omnibus package for regulatory simplification or in any so-called ‘stop-the-clock’ measure. In other words, renegotiation is not on the table. This means that the Swedish legislative process will now resume, but there is still uncertainty as to when a concrete legislative proposal will be presented. However, the fact that the directive has not been transposed into Swedish law does not mean that it is entirely without legal significance. In certain limited respects, the directive may have direct effect on public-sector employers. For private-sector employers, however, the directive will have no legal effect until it has been implemented.
