The concept of employee in several laws is expanded to also include hired workers and consultants.
The wording is changed from the previous "...performs work in the service of another", to now "...performs work for and subordinate to another". The expansion of the term is intended to include hired personnel, but at the same time marks a distinction between contracts and independent assignment relationships. In the legal text, this is made clear by including, among other things, making their personal labor available and being subordinate through management, leadership and control. It is the client who has the burden of proof to document that there may be a contract relationship and not a hiring relationship. This means that in cases of doubt, it must be assumed that there is an employment relationship. (AML §1-8, Holiday Act §2, Labour Disputes Act §1).
Safety Representative and Working Environment Committee
The obligation to elect a safety representative now applies from 5 employees, compared to previously 10. Safety representatives must also safeguard the interests of hired and independent contractors. Obligation to establish an AMU for at least 30 employees, previously 50. (AML §6-1, 6-2 and §7-1)
Information and discussion in groups with businesses that together employ at least 50 employees
New rules are introduced for how groups, parent companies and subsidiaries are defined and how cooperation, information and discussion should be carried out between the companies and employees. (For details, see new §8-4 in the AML)
Temporary employment and hiring
The four-year limit for temporary employment of a temporary nature is changed to a three-year limit (§14-9, seventh paragraph).
The obligation to annually discuss the use of part-time work (§14-1), the use of temporary employment (§14-9) and the use of hired labor from staffing agencies (§14-12) is collected in a new section 14-14 a, and is expanded to also apply to discussions on the use of hiring, independent contractors and other service purchases that have an impact on staffing.
Preferential right upon termination
If a company that downsizes through dismissal is part of a group, the preferential right after dismissal will be extended to also apply to other businesses in the group (§14-2, first paragraph and §15-4, second paragraph).
The letter of termination must then state which companies are part of the group at the time of termination (§15-7, new third paragraph).
If an offer of a position in other companies in the group is not accepted, the preferential right in the company from which the employee was dismissed is maintained (§14-2, fifth paragraph).
Two judgments that are of interest to employment law:
Can an employer deprive an employee of the position of VO or HVO?
There has been a much-discussed case from the Oslo District Court regarding the dismissal of the chief safety representative at IKEA. The judgment is not yet final, but IKEA has already said that they will not appeal, so it will probably become final within a few days. Here, the court ruled that the employer does not have a legal basis to deprive the HVO of his position even if there were major cooperation problems and a whistleblowing case against the person in question. VO and HVO are elected by and among the employees, and the court assumes that the employer cannot use the right of management to deprive a safety representative of this position. If a VO/HVO is to lose his position against his will, it must happen through a new election.
Occupational injury when working from home
A ruling in the Court of Appeal, which is now final, states that occupational injury insurance only applies to work from home if the nature of the work makes it natural and necessary to have a home office. This means that practical reasons for using a home office are not sufficient to maintain occupational injury coverage.
In the case in question, there was no agreement on home office, but the court does not see that this was decisive. In order for the insurance to be valid, it is a prerequisite that the accident occurs during working hours, at work and at the workplace. In this case, it is clear that it occurred during working hours and at work, but since the accident occurred while working at a home office in the morning before the employee was due to go to the workplace, and it was not necessary for the "nature of the work" to begin or end the work at home, the court concluded that occupational injury coverage was not activated at the relevant time.
