{"id":58788,"date":"2026-05-04T12:51:20","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:51:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/?post_type=articles&p=58788"},"modified":"2026-05-22T13:39:44","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T11:39:44","slug":"ad-2025-no-99-dismissal-due-to-personal-reasons","status":"publish","type":"articles","link":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/article\/ad-2025-no-99-dismissal-due-to-personal-reasons\/","title":{"rendered":"AD 2025 No. 99 \u2013 Dismissal due to personal reasons"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

An employee was dismissed from his permanent employment due to personal reasons. According to the employer, the employee had consistently shown misconduct, cooperation difficulties and disloyal behaviour towards the company and its management, as well as refusal to work. The employee claimed that the dismissal should be annulled. The Labour Court found, like the District Court, that the employee’s conduct had been in such a way that it was justified to dismiss him from the employment and that there were therefore objective reasons for the dismissal.<\/em><\/p>\n

The case concerned dismissal due to personal reasons at the beginning of 2024. The employee had been employed since 2021 and was one of the company’s founders. During the period 2023\u20132024, he was also a member of the Board of Directors of the company. At a meeting in early 2024, the employee was given a written warning and three days later he was notified of the dismissal. Just over a month later, the employee was dismissed from his employment. The employee brought an action seeking annulment of the dismissal and damages.<\/p>\n

The Labour Court initially found that the employee had repeatedly acted disloyally and inappropriately in a way that should not have to be tolerated in an employment relationship. The court also found that the employee had shown severe cooperation difficulties that had affected the company’s work environment very negatively. Among other things, two colleagues had stated that they were unable to work with the employee or were considering quitting because of the employee’s behavior.<\/p>\n

The Labour Court further emphasised that the employee, in his capacity as a board member, may indeed have had reason to argue in matters concerning the company’s management, but that this did not mean that his conduct in the employment was acceptable. The employee had, among other things, criticized the appointment of a colleague as CEO, and this criticism had been directed at both the CEO himself, other colleagues and one of the employees’ wife. The Labour Court found that the statements did not constitute factual criticism but rather aimed at undermining the CEO’s position. The Labour Court also took into account that it was a small workplace with few employees. The court found that the employee had clearly exceeded the limit of what should be tolerated by the company when he had made the degrading statement he had made about the CEO, among other things.<\/p>\n

The Labour Court then noted that the company should certainly have made it clearer to the employee that the behaviour was not acceptable and warned that the employment was in danger. However, the court found that the employee had grossly neglected his obligations towards the employer in such a way that the employer even could have chosen dismissal without notice (in which case there is no obligation to first give the employee a warning). For this reason, the lack of a clearer warning or reprimand did not affect the outcome of the case.<\/p>\n

In summary, the Labour Court found that the employee’s conduct had acted in such a way that it was justified to dismiss him from the employment. There were therefore objective reasons for the dismissal.<\/p>\n

Setterwalls’ comment:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The case is an example of when cooperation difficulties, misconduct and disloyal behaviour are of such a nature that they should not have to be tolerated in an employment relationship. Setterwalls considers it particularly interesting that the employee in the case was the founder and was part of the company’s board of directors at the time of some of the events. Although the Labour Court took this into account, it came to the conclusion that the conduct was so serious that it could not be tolerated, which indicates that even employees in that position are not allowed to behave and express themselves in certain ways in an employment relationship. The case also shows that employees cannot hide behind any form of right of criticism if the criticism in question is inappropriate and has the purpose of damaging or undermining the employer’s position.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":56777,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":true,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":""},"article_category":[1043],"class_list":["post-58788","articles","type-articles","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","article_category-employment-and-pension-law"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles\/58788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articles"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/articles"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"article_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/setterwalls.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article_category?post=58788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}