Åldersdiskriminering : - är den svenska arbetsrätten åldersdiskriminerande?

• Main Author: Lundin, Sofia
• Format: Others
• Language: Swedish
• Published: Linnéuniversitetet, Ekonomihögskolan, ELNU 2012
• Subjects: Ålder; Åldersdiskriminering; Turordningsregler; Semester; Pensionsålder; LAW/JURISPRUDENCE; RÄTTSVETENSKAP/JURIDIK
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-18117

Since several rules of law have a consideration of age, the Swedish labor law collides in many ways with the prohibition of age discrimination.   The employment directives of EU were implemented in the member countries after the shift of the millennium. Sweden was the last member to introduce age as a ground of discrimination in its legislation. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether the Swedish regulations, regarding age discrimination and its application, is compatible with the EU.  The aim is also to investigate what is required to exclude the prohibition of age discrimination. The labor law provisions concerning the retirement age given in 32 a and 33 §§ LAS, priority rules according to 22 § LAS and the collectively agreed holiday benefit, which is regulated according to a worker's age, is to be investigated to see if they actually qualify for the exclusion of the prohibition against age discrimination. Furthermore, the paper intends to describe if the Swedish legislation has taken account of the research available on the subject of "age" and “age discrimination”. In order to fulfill the purpose, the paper is based on a legal dogmatic method.   The content of the essay consists initially of an investigation about the EU employment directive and also about the Swedish legislation on age discrimination. Furthermore the contents describe the above three rules, and what research on the subject suggests.   Comparing of the Swedish anti-discrimination legislation and the EU employment directive, indicates that the Swedish legislation meets the minimum requirements of the directive. The results of the paper indicate that there are a lot of room for exceptions, which makes it difficult to pinpoint where the border between age discrimination and preferential treatment based on age is drawn. 32 a and 33 §§ LAS along with the collectively agreed holiday benefit do not qualify for the exclusion of the prohibition against age discrimination. It is therefore concluded that there are weaknesses in the Swedish legislation, in attempt to exclude the prohibition of age discrimination. The priority rules under 22 § LAS are examples of legitimate distinctions based on age. Furthermore, neither the EU nor the Swedish legislation took account of the research on age and age discrimination.