(edit title) Employee right in layoffs Severence or settlement during lay offs Options

[newyorkerinstockholm]

Hello!

My employer is selling the company and I have been given a 3 month notice that I will be laid off. Am I entitled to severance or some sort of settlement from my employer?

Many thanks in advance!

[Bender B Rodriquez]

If the business just changes owners the employees have the right to continue their employment as if nothing happened. According to the law the employees are a part of the business transaction.

[Yorkshireman]

This only applies if the company is sold. I got the impression that the OP means his current owner has given him notice before the company is sold.

OP, provide a little further info please:
1. What reason in the written notice from your employer has been given? Note: Selling the company is not an acceptable reason for laying off people
2. How long have You been working for the employer?
3. Is there a collective agreement with any Union at your company?
4. Are you the member of any Union?
5. Have You signed anything with regards acceptance?
6. What notice period, if any is in your contract of employment?

Let's start with those first!

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Yes, but the notice does not seem valid, as you point out in paragraph 1.

[Yorkshireman]

You are perfectly right which is why the OP needs to add more info. We cannot tell if the official written reason for notice was selling the company, or if that is just what they know to be the real reason!

[newyorkerinstockholm]

Hi Yorkshireman,

Thanks for your reply.

1. The reason given is that the company will now be run by another company. It is a fashion company franchise that will no longer be franchise. The corporation in the UK will run the company in Sweden starting in October.
2. I have worked there for 10 months
3. No collective agreement signed
4. I am not a member of a union
5. I have yet to sign my Uppsägning
6. I have a 3 months notice on my contract for my employment to be terminated. The owner of the company is giving just that.

Thanks again for the help!

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Point 1 is not a legal ground for termination.

[newyorkerinstockholm]

Thanks, Bender. But what should I do next? Contact the trade union that normally works with fashion companies (handels) even if I'm not a member?

[Yorkshireman]

Your employer has broken the law on employment protection (LAS), pure and simple. Given the facts provided.

LAS states very clearly that if a company is sold then the employee contracts transfer automatically to the new company, with no changes. It is just a change of employer, the contract does not change, and You should be working for the new owner. I am guessing here, but it is a common mistake when ownership changes to outside of Sweden, that either your current employer does not understand LAS, or more likely the UK don't!

Normal practise is that employees are given a choice on a pending sale, to work for the new employer or accept being given notice due to lack of work (arbetsbrist).

What can You do, well, let's face it, the owners either the current one or the new one coming, have decided they do not want You working for them So, even if You transfer to the new company on the sale, they could equally claim arbetsbrist, and that opens a slightly different ball game, and gives additional rights after the event.

I doubt that any Union could help You directly now, especially since You were not a member, and there is no collective agreement with any.

First, do not sign any document, remember your 3 months is in contract so that is protected whatever happens. You could mention to the employer that according to LAS when a company is sold the existing employee contracts transfer automatically by law to the new company.

See how the owner reacts, it could be that reducing the workforce is part of the sale-agreement, in this case it could effect the sale?. It may be that You could counter propose informally that they pay an additional number of months notice eg. 3, 6 etc... to buy you out, not unusual to happen.

If at the end of the day your contract is not carried over to the new owner, your only real course of action would be to take the new owner and the case to Arbetsdomstol (the court that deals with employment issues). They would, I am convinced, find in your favour and either have you re-instated or calculate some kind of compensation (though don't expect too much, this is Sweden!).

It is important to keep this original notice, since whatever happens, even if arbetsbrist is used now or very near after the sale, it can be a good piece of evidence to show it was a constructed dismissal.

Make sure You work as normal, stick to the rules and give no chance for written warnings or any basis for removal from work due to personal reasons.

[Puffin]

Is OP covered by LAS if they have only worked there for 10 months? I though you needed 2 years to get full LAS protection?

[Legolas]

Does the OP have fastänstallning (permanent employment)? LAS is applicable to permanent employees irrespective of the duration of employment. If the OP only has provänstallning or a time limited contract not much can be done.

[newyorkerinstockholm]

Thank you for the extensive reply, Yorshire.

Legolas - yes, I have fastänstallning. My provänstallning ended at 6 months.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Is OP covered by LAS if they have only worked there for 10 months? I though you needed 2 years to get full LAS protection?

Paragraph 6b in LAS applies to all employees:
"Vid övergång av ett företag, en verksamhet eller en del av en verksamhet från en arbetsgivare till en annan, övergår också de rättigheter och skyldigheter på grund av de anställningsavtal och de anställningsförhållanden som gäller vid tidpunkten för övergången på den nya arbetsgivaren. Den tidigare arbetsgivaren är dock också ansvarig gentemot arbetstagaren för ekonomiska förpliktelser som hänför sig till tiden före övergången. Detta stycke gäller även arbetstagare i allmän tjänst och på sjögående fartyg.
Första stycket gäller inte vid övergång i samband med konkurs.
Första stycket gäller inte heller ålders-, invaliditets- eller efterlevandeförmåner.
Trots bestämmelserna i första stycket skall anställningsavtalet och anställningsförhållandet inte övergå till en ny arbetsgivare, om arbetstagaren motsätter sig detta. Lag (1994:1685)."

Paragraph 7 also give some insight:
"Uppsägning från arbetsgivarens sida skall vara sakligt grundad.
En uppsägning är inte sakligt grundad om det är skäligt att kräva att arbetsgivaren bereder arbetstagaren annat arbete hos sig.
Vid en sådan övergång av ett företag, en verksamhet eller en del av en verksamhet som sägs i 6 b § skall övergången i sig inte utgöra saklig grund för att säga upp arbetstagaren. Detta förbud skall dock inte hindra uppsägningar som sker av ekonomiska, tekniska eller organisatoriska skäl där förändringar i arbetsstyrkan ingår.
Om uppsägningen beror på förhållanden som hänför sig till arbetstagaren personligen, får den inte grundas enbart på omständigheter som arbetsgivaren har känt till antingen mer än två månader innan underrättelse lämnades enligt 30 § eller, om någon sådan underrättelse inte lämnats, två månader före tidpunkten för uppsägningen. Arbetsgivaren får dock grunda uppsägningen enbart på omständigheter som han har känt till mer än två månader, om tidsöverdraget berott på att han på arbetstagarens begäran eller med dennes medgivande dröjt med underrättelsen eller uppsägningen eller om det finns synnerliga skäl för att omständigheterna får åberopas. Lag (1994:1685)."

[Localer]

Whatever is it, if the employer claims layoff caused by "arbetsbrist", then case closed.

[Yorkshireman]

Not so. Since the current employer has already given notice due to selling the company, the if notice is then given by the same employer due to arbetsbrist, it is clearly a construction and can be challenged in arbetsdomstol with a very high degree of probability of either re-instatement or compensation.

The employer should have 1st claimed arbetsbrist, then sold the company ... because one could argue the sale was due to a failing business, nothing unusual there. In this case the employer was not smart.

The new owner could claim arbetsbrist, after the sale, with reasonable grounds. However, if that is done, the OP would have additional rights within LAS, meaning that not only do they get the contracted 3 months, but also 1st choice of re-employment before any other new employee could be recruited. Unless they are bought out of the contract of-course.

Unions and Collective agreements just mean these things are agreed between the union and employer before it goes to court, if You are not in a Union and there is no collective agreement then all challenges have to be done after-the-event via Arbetsdomstol.