An employee at the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (FORA) served as a full-time union representative for almost a decade. She was released from her normal tasks during that period but received her salary and benefits as usual. Accordingly, she was also still subject to certain obligations, including the duty to register her working time and absence. Concurrently, she also reported any absences and holidays to the union.
However, the Agency suddenly became aware of a series of issues with her working time submissions. Her log-in data and working time that was reported to the union did not match the data in the Agency’s system. On certain days, the system showed that there was no log-in activity despite working time being registered. On other days, she had reported sick leave or holidays to the union, but working time was registered in the system. After concluding its investigation, the Agency summarily dismissed her.
The Labour Court agreed that the summary dismissal was justified. After going through each of the working time registrations thoroughly, it was clear that the employee had committed time theft. While some discrepancies could be explained, several others could not. The Court emphasised the level of trust required within a public authority such as the Social Insurance Agency. Moreover, it added that the threshold was even higher in the scenario where it was not possible for the Agency to supervise her activity.
iuno’s opinion
Time theft can quickly justify a summary dismissal, even for protected groups and employees with several years of seniority. We are increasingly seeing more examples of that in practice, as companies are recording their employees’ working time more consistently. That said, given the seriousness of termination without notice, it is always a case-by-case assessment.
iuno recommends that companies have clear guidelines on their obligations to register their working time and absence. It should also be clear what sanctions non-compliance may trigger in practice. We have previously written about when a breach of trust justified a summary dismissal here.
[The Labour Court’s judgement of 21 January 2026 in case 2/2026]