Sweden: Advokatfirman Cederquist, Together with Lawyer Jens Tillqvist, Successfully Represented a Company in the Swedish Labour Court Concerning the Interpretation of a Collective Bargaining Agreement

Author: Karolina Sundqvist

In a recent ruling, the Swedish Labour Court determined, after applying the usual principles of interpretations of collective bargaining agreements, that the work of a traffic warden employed by a company within the construction and transport sector was not covered by the collective bargaining agreement applicable within the construction sector.

The company’s business activities include providing support services for the construction and transport industries, and the company operates within different collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) areas. In May 2020, the company became bound by a CBA applicable within the transport sector (the “Transport Agreement”). Later, in February 2022, the company also became bound by a CBA within the construction sector (the “Construction Agreement”). A dispute arose regarding whether a traffic warden employed by the company should fall under the Transport Agreement or the Construction Agreement. The company had applied the Transport Agreement, but applying the Construction Agreement would have entitled the employee to higher remuneration.

The Swedish Construction Workers’ union argued that the work of a traffic warden at, near, or in connection with construction sites, or if the traffic warden becomes an integral part of a construction site, constitutes a core activity under the scope of the Construction Agreement. The union further argued that the Construction Agreement applies to the work of a traffic warden under the so-called 29/29 principle, as the work is inherently connected to the core activities governed by the Construction Agreement. Conversely, the company maintained that the tasks of a traffic warden should instead be governed by the Transport Agreement.

The Court noted that the Construction Agreement lacks provisions defining its scope and does not explicitly mention traffic wardens. Furthermore, no evidence was presented indicating that the parties to the Construction Agreement, whether initially or over time, had a mutual understanding of the Construction Agreement’s scope regarding traffic wardens. As a result, the Court concluded that there was no evidence that the parties to the Construction Agreement intended for activities involving traffic wardens to be considered core activities under the Construction Agreement. The Court then concluded that there was no evidence indicating that the Construction Agreement historically and generally had been applied to traffic wardens. Additionally, information provided by the company revealed that another major company applies a CBA entered by the Swedish Transport Workers’ union to its traffic wardens working at construction sites. The investigation revealed no indications that traffic warden work falls under the Construction Agreement.

The Court therefore dismissed the union’s claims. However, two members of the Court dissented, arguing that the work of a traffic warden must be considered to have such a connection to the construction activities that the Construction Agreement should apply.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-House Counsel

Regularly review and ensure the accurate classification of employees when applying collective bargaining agreements.