Sweden: The Swedish Labour Court Rules on the Dismissal of a Police Inspector Following Security Screening Failure

Author: Karolina Sundqvist

In a recent ruling, the Swedish Labour Court determined that objective reasons justified the dismissal of a police inspector. The decision was based on a series of misconducts, including associations with individuals facing criminal charges, which collectively breached the inspector´s employment obligations. Despite receiving formal reprimands and undergoing security interviews, the police inspector´s conduct failed to improve, and reassignment was deemed unreasonable.

The Labour Court has reaffirmed that a police inspector who fails a security screening cannot be assigned work involving classified information. Consequently, for a dismissal to be upheld in such a case, the employer must provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the employee lacks the requisite loyalty to the interests protected under the Protective Security Act (Sw. Säkerhetsskyddslagen) or is otherwise deemed unreliable from a security perspective.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that the police inspector´s brother had a criminal record and was implicated in multiple criminal activities. At the time of the dismissal, the brother was listed in 21 separate entries in the criminal register and was suspected of being affiliated with a criminal network. When the inspector first underwent a security interview, his brother was under investigation for murder. Moreover, other police officers had raised concerns about the inspector´s association with his brother and other individuals in criminal circles. Despite these concerns, the inspector continued to maintain close ties with his brother, including driving his brother´s car and purchasing a vehicle from a company where his brother was employed.

Additionally, the Labour Court found that the police inspector had engaged in business affairs with another individual registered as a criminal suspect. Further misconduct included bringing unauthorised individuals into a protected police facility, leaving his workplace without authorisation for extended periods, assisting a secondary acquaintance in retrieving confiscated license plates, inviting his brother to participate in a padel match with police colleagues, and committing a speeding offense near a school. The Court emphasised that the role of law enforcement officers extends beyond crime prevention and investigation; they are also expected to uphold a high standard of personal integrity, particularly in their associations with individuals involved in criminal activities. Failure to do so risks undermining confidence in both the individual officer and the Police Authority as a whole.

The Court determined that the inspector´s pattern of misconduct demonstrated a lack of insight into the professional and ethical standards required of a police inspector. The employer had attempted to address his behaviour through two security interviews. During the first meeting, the inspector was explicitly warned that his continued unauthorised actions could jeopardize his employment. A subsequent meeting led to the implementation of an action plan aimed at correcting his behaviour. Despite these interventions, the inspector persisted in his associations with criminally linked individuals and continued his questionable business involvement, demonstrating a disregard for the employer´s concerns.

Given the severity and persistence of his misconduct, the Labour Court concluded that reassignment was not a viable option. The police inspector´s actions had irreparably damaged the trust required for his role within the Police Authority. Consequently, the Court ruled that there were objective reasons for his dismissal.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-House Counsel

In cases where an employee has demonstrated severe and persistent misconduct, it is possible that objective reasons for dismissal may exist, even if the employer has not first reassigned the employee to a different position.