4. Trends and Specific Cases
a. New or Expected Developments
The use of independent contractors is increasing in Sweden. Hence, the acceptance of its presence as a complement to regular employees has grown in the legal context. Another new trend on the Swedish labour market is the increasing number of self-employment companies and self-employed persons. This arrangement is basically that a person is employed by a self-employment company and is then either hired out to businesses for a period of time or for a specific assignment. It is the self-employed himself/herself who obtains the assignments. The self-employment company invoices the hiring/contracting company for the performed assignment. Salary and social security contributions are paid by the self-employment company to the self-employed person based on the invoiced amount. Thus, the contracting company and the self-employment company are the contracting parties.
b. Recent Amendments to the Law
In a ruling from the Labour Court from 2012 (AD 2012 no. 24) a consultant was re-characterized as an employee. A public service radio company had contracted a person as anchorman through her sole proprietorship. The person had previously been employed in different temporary employments at the company. The Court stated that given that the person had previously been employed by the company, an actual change of the working conditions was required in order to regard the person as an independent contractor. The Court concluded that the only real change since the new arrangement was the practice of payments by invoices instead of regular salary payment. Further, the invoiced amounts were at approximately the same level as the salary levels for employees in general at the company. The Court found that the working conditions had not changed in any material way and established that the relationship was in fact an employment relationship. The Court found that the person was to be considered a permanent employee and she was awarded damages for the company’s violation of the collective bargaining agreement. No further compensation or accrued vacation pay etc. was awarded.
The Labor Court examined a similar situation in a ruling from 2021 (AD 2021 no. 13). However, in this situation, the person had no prior employment at the company. This individual, an actor, was contracted for a theatrical production for three months. Initially, the Court confirmed that an overall assessment should be conducted when determining whether a person is a consultant or an employee. The Court noted that when there are circumstances that argue both for, and against, an employment relationship, case law suggests that the relationship should be considered an employment. Conversely, the Court emphasized that other case law in such situations has taken into account how the parties have interpreted the contract. The Court found that there were circumstances in this situation that argued both for and against employment. Ultimately, the Court concluded that although the company intended for the person to act as a consultant, the person did not share this intention and had not agreed to act as a consultant. Therefore, the person was to be considered an employee.
