EN
HR Legal

Leaving early meant leaving for good

logo
Legal news
calendar 24 January 2025
globus Sweden

A dock worker repeatedly left work early, lied about it, underperformed, and even failed to clean up an oil spill he was responsible for. The Labour Court agreed that it was fair to terminate him and that there was no obligation to reassign him.

A dock worker in Gothenburg was terminated after he repeatedly left early and lied about it. There were also a series of other issues, including that he had ignored procedures for cleaning up an oil spill at a port terminal.

The employee was reprimanded at several meetings and received a written warning. However, it became clear to the company that he would not improve, and he was terminated.

Termination was far from surprising

The court concluded that a termination should not come as a surprise to anyone. It was clear to the employee that his employment was in danger. Despite that, he had shown that he was unwilling to change. He had no reason to believe that his behaviour was acceptable.

The court also agreed that reassignment was out of the question due to the serious and repetitive nature of the employee’s behaviour.

IUNO’s opinion

It is generally difficult to carry out a justified termination when it is based on the employee’s behaviour. However, this case shows that it is possible, but that companies should secure paper trails documenting efforts to address the issues.

IUNO recommends having procedures in place for employees who breach company policies and procedures. We have previously written about how to draft a “good warning” here.

[The Labour Court’s decision of 18 December 2024 in case 103/24] 

A dock worker in Gothenburg was terminated after he repeatedly left early and lied about it. There were also a series of other issues, including that he had ignored procedures for cleaning up an oil spill at a port terminal.

The employee was reprimanded at several meetings and received a written warning. However, it became clear to the company that he would not improve, and he was terminated.

Termination was far from surprising

The court concluded that a termination should not come as a surprise to anyone. It was clear to the employee that his employment was in danger. Despite that, he had shown that he was unwilling to change. He had no reason to believe that his behaviour was acceptable.

The court also agreed that reassignment was out of the question due to the serious and repetitive nature of the employee’s behaviour.

IUNO’s opinion

It is generally difficult to carry out a justified termination when it is based on the employee’s behaviour. However, this case shows that it is possible, but that companies should secure paper trails documenting efforts to address the issues.

IUNO recommends having procedures in place for employees who breach company policies and procedures. We have previously written about how to draft a “good warning” here.

[The Labour Court’s decision of 18 December 2024 in case 103/24] 

Receive our newsletter

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Similar

logo
HR Legal

22 January 2026

Company should offer sick employee to return with fixed working hours

logo
HR Legal

22 January 2026

Company handled sexual harassment without triggering liability

logo
HR Legal

5 January 2026

Not discrimination to deny employee paid leave for ADHD course

logo
HR Legal

11 December 2025

Long COVID resulted in a disability and led to discrimination

logo
HR Legal

26 November 2025

Time for a (Christmas) party

logo
HR Legal

26 November 2025

Time for a (Christmas) party

The team

Alma

Winsløw-Lydeking

Senior legal assistant

Anders

Etgen Reitz

Partner

Cecillie

Groth Henriksen

Senior associate

Elias

Lederhaas

Legal assistant

Emilie

Louise Børsch

Associate

Frederikke

Ludvig Rossen

Junior legal assistant

Johan

Gustav Dein

Senior associate

Kirsten

Astrup

Managing associate

Laura

Dyvad Ziemer Markill

Legal assistant

Søren

Hessellund Klausen

Partner