Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
786-25 Généré par l'IA

HFD allows appeal regarding whether seasonal gaps in dispatch constitute sending out to replace another person.

Numéro de cause 786-25
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suède (SE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Supreme Administrative Court granted permission to appeal a decision concerning whether a seasonal gap in dispatch constitutes sending out to replace another person. The applicant argued that the interruption between dispatches meant the individual was not sent out to replace anyone, while the opposing party contended the seasonal nature did not negate the replacement status. The court decided to allow the appeal to examine the specific circumstances of the seasonal work pattern and the continuity of the replacement duty.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Administrative Code s. 10; s. 11: A seasonal interruption in dispatch does not automatically preclude a finding that a person was sent out to replace another, provided the overall context supports a continuous replacement relationship.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
seasonal dispatch replacement duty administrative code supreme administrative court proving permission work interruption substitution status autorisation saisonnière

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Administrative Code s. 10
Administrative Code s. 11
Généré par l'IA
A 126-94
Union claims damages for delayed termination; court awards economic but rejects general damages for employer's good faith efforts.
664-02
Seasonal worker dismissed unemployment claim; court rules she was unemployed between seasons.
A 87-92
Seasonal construction work deemed lawful under special circumstances despite union claims of circumventing permanent employment rules.
136-99
Summer school science program not deemed full-year training under ALF Act when student resumes studies after break.
A 118-93, A 120-93
Union representatives dismissed due to redundancy; employer not bound to reassign them to other sites.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

Den fråga i målet som har lett till att Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen meddelat prövningstillstånd är om en person ska anses ha sänts ut för att ersätta någon annan person när det, till följd av verksamhetens säsongsbetonade karaktär, gjorts uppehåll mellan utsändningarna (Mål nr 786-25, Kammarrätten i Jönköpings mål nr 2053-24).