sou · GOB380 · 2001-01-01 00:00:00 — An extra-occupational activity is defined as any employment, as- signment or other activity that an employee engages in apart from his or her principal employment. Attending to the affairs of an individual or a family is not considered to be an extra-occupational activity. The extra-occupational activities of state employees are regulated in two different ways: the Public Employment Act prohibits extra- occupational activities adversely affecting confidence; while extra- occupational activities adversely affecting working practices and activi- ties of a competitive nature are regulated in the collective agreements between the parties on the state labour market. These same two sets of regulations apply to those employed by the social insurance offices. For employees of municipalities and county councils, on the other hand, both extra-occupational activities adversely affecting working practices and those of a competitive nature are covered by collective agreements. The prohibition against extra-occupational activities adversely affec- ting confidence arises from the particular demands concerning integrity that the public service sector makes of its employees. These require- ments are inherent in the form of government, since this requires courts and administrative authorities to be objective and impartial. The survey of the extra-occupational activities of public employees In order to provide a basis for deliberations and proposals, the inquiry enlisted the services of Statistics (SCB). A questionnaire was sent to approximately 15,000 public employees asking for information about their extra-occupational activities. This contained questions about the extent of extra-occupational activities and asked for information about them, the time devoted to them and the reasons for having them. According to the study, of public employees have one or more extra-occupational activities. When the results are compared to those of a similar study that was conducted towards the end of the 1960's, this represents a decline of 8 percentage points. Whether public servants are employed by the state, the municipalities, the county councils or the social insurance offices, the number engaged in extra-occupational acti- vities is approximately the same. However, there are major differences between various groups of employees. Extra-occupational activities are much more common among heads of civil service departments and jud- ges, for example. As a result of the study, the committee came to the conclusion that the total frequency of extra-occupational activities among public employees, taking into account the extent of extra-occupational activiti- es and what is meant by the concept, cannot be considered noteworthy or a cause for concern. A significant proportion of the extra- occupational activities of public employees are conducted on behalf of other public authorities, public administrations or non-profit associations. However, the inquiry would point out that there is generally considerable room for improvement as far as employers are concerned, both when it comes to informing their employees about the rules concerning extra- occupational activities, and making use of the opportunities that exist to obtain information about them. Evaluation of regulations and established practice Having reviewed a considerable amount of the established practice that exists concerning extra-occupational activities, the inquiry has come to the conclusion that this is relatively uniform, stable and well-balanced. There is scope in The Public Employment Act, section 7, for individual judgement to be applied. However, improvements could be made both in the way that employees are informed about extra-occupational activiti- es, and with respect to the opportunities available to the state employers to enquire about them. Similarly, since there is a division between legi- slation and agreement, this has sometimes been considered to cause problems of application. Extra-occupational activities adversely affecting confidence Of the three principal types of extra-occupational activities that are not permitted, those that adversely affect confidence have always been the ones that have attracted most attention. In accordance with the directi- ve, a review of the regulations concerning this type of extra- occupational activity has also been the principal task of this inquiry. The inquiry considers that established practice indicates that the re- gulations concerning extra-occupational activities adversely affecting confidence in most cases fulfil the requirement that it should be possible to terminate such activities. should the extent of the extra- occupational activities revealed by the statistical study be taken to mean that the regulations as such need to be made more stringent. Neither established practice nor the occurrence of extra-occupational activities therefore constitute any particular reason to make any major changes of substance in the current regulations in order to expand or limit the extent of the prohibition against extra-occupational activities. Those problems that are to be found in particular areas are more due to a lack of both information about the regulations and checks to ensure that they are followed rather than their actual purport. The inquiry therefore consi- ders that rather than extending the regulations concerning prohibition in general, better checks should be implemented in particular areas, espe- cially with respect to authorities and administrations concerned with the exercise of public authority, supervision and procurement. While the regulations in general have neither "missed" any particular type of extra-occupational activity nor given rise to any major problems concerning their application, this should naturally not be taken to imply that such is never the case. On the other hand the disadvantages of a less flexible and more detailed regulation of various activities, areas of administration, groups of employees or types of extra-occupational acti- vities must be considered to outweigh the advantages when an increase in specialised regulation is compared to the general rules of the type that are in force at the present time. For this reason, and as a result of the scepticism with respect to such legislation that we encountered in our dealings with authorities and others, we have abstained from implemen- ting new, specialised rules. The inquiry does not therefore propose any changes as such with re- spect to the regulations concerning extra-occupational activities adver- sely affecting confidence. However, since applying a general rule can be difficult, not least for an employee, there are grounds for attempting to clarify the matter by giving some guidance with respect to certain circumstances that are significant when it comes to evaluating an extra- occupational activity. We have therefore proposed that those occupatio- nal activities in which the risk that confidence may be adversely affec- ted is particularly acute should be listed in the regulations. These areas are: the administration of , the exercise of public authority, super- vision, procurement, the administration of property, and the leadership of a public administration. In addition, the inquiry has come to the conclu- sion that the current special regulations for the tax authority and the customs can be rescinded. The extra-occupational activities of judges At the present time, the general rules concerning extra-occupational ac- tivities are the same as the ones that apply to other employees of the state. The inquiry feels there is reason to emphasize that there should be extremely careful deliberation, both on the part of the judge and the party intending to enlist the judge for a particular assignment. One can- not ignore the fact that the profession of a judge entails such special tasks and such a special role in society, that the requirement of public confidence is particularly strong when it comes to the activities of the courts. However, the inquiry has come to the conclusion that the ad- vantages of having a general rule, with scope for the evaluation of each individual case, is also applicable to judges. It has not been deemed ne- cessary to implement a particular prohibition for any category of judge. On the other hand the inquiry has expressed what it considers to be the purport, as far as judges are concerned, of current rules concerning ex- tra-occupational activities: among other things that acting as an arbitra- tor or sitting on the board of a profit-making company, with few excep- tions, cannot be considered compatible with section 7 of the Public Employment Act. Extra-occupational activities that adversely affect working practi- ces or are competitive in nature The conclusion of the inquiry is that extra-occupational activities adver- sely affecting working practices are not generally a problem. By and large it is up to the management to solve such problems where they ex- ist. Current rules enable employers to put a stop to extra-occupational activities that adversely affect working practices. Extra-occupational activities of a competitive nature do not seem to be a problem either. The inquiry is of the opinion that it is the employing authority that is best in a position to assess whether an extra- occupational activity is competitive and damaging or not. It is therefore proposed that assessment upon the part of the state should be done by the authority/employer - as is already done at municipal level - and not, as is current practice, by the government. By means of improved information from the employers and the in- quiry's proposal that disclosure by employees should be obligatory, it is anticipated that the number of problems that may arise can be expected to diminish, both as regards competitive extra-occupational activities and those that adversely affect working practices. A new system of checks The authority and obligation that employers have to react to extra- occupational activities that adversely affect confidence, and act at an early stage, must be improved, particularly as far as the state is concer- ned. This is something that has also been pointed out to the inquiry dur- ing many of the contacts that were made with authorities. In order to evaluate issues concerning extra-occupational activities before the damage is done and the confidence of the public is lost, it is important that it should become a natural subject for employers and employees to discuss together. The inquiry has proposed that an employer who is made aware of an extra-occupational activity that adversely affects confidence, should be obliged to instruct the employee either to desist or not to undertake the activity. By obliging employers to inform employees about what sort of circumstances can make an extra-occupational acti- vity one that adversely affects confidence, while at the same time obli- ging an employee to supply an employer, when asked, with the informa- tion needed for an employer to evaluate an employee's extra- occupational activities, it should be possible for a reasoned discussion to take place on an ongoing basis and in most cases this should not lead to drastic measures being taken. It should be considered self-evident that an employee is entitled to be told by an employer what the latter's view is of the permissibility of an extra-occupational activity. The regulation of this in section 12 of the Employment Regulation can thus be rescin- ded. The rules for extra-occupational activities that adversely affect con- fidence are to be found in the Public Employment Act and are also ap- plicable to municipalities and county councils. For practical reasons, the employee's obligation to disclose should apply to all types of extra- occupational activities. Reviews of decisions concerning extra- occupational activities can be made consistent by enabling the Labour Court to review both those decisions concerning extra-occupational ac- tivities that are made in accordance with the Public Employment Act as well as those decisions concerning extra-occupational activities that ad- versely affect working practices or are competitive in nature that have been decided on the basis of collective agreements. The particular standing of judges and the particular implications for the rule of law that is entailed by an evaluation of their extra- occupational activities, has led the inquiry to propose that judges who have been employed as the result of a government decision, should, on their own initiative, inform their employers about their extra- occupational activities. According to this suggestion, the National Swe- dish 's Committee For Official Proposals would be the body responsible for all evaluations. Among other things, this would mean that the information would then be in the public domain. The obligation to disclose would be incorporated into the legislation. Even director-generals, county governors, other heads of administra- tive authorities that report directly to the government and directors of social insurance offices, would have a legal obligation to notify their ex- tra-occupational activities, in these cases to the government or the board of the social insurance office. Regulation by statute or agreement The prohibition against extra-occupational activities that adversely af- fect confidence has the same purpose at municipal and county council level as it has a government level. The intention is to maintain the confi- dence of the public that the administration acts in an objective and impartial . This applies with as much force at the municipal level as it does at the state level. This is a matter of public interest that is in- dependent of the relationship that pertains between employer and employee. At the present time the municipalities and county councils are res- ponsible for the overwhelming majority of the public administration. The public, whose confidence in the administration the regulations concer- ning extra-occupational activities are intended to protect, has at least as much contact with the municipal administration as it has with the state administration. The municipal administrations exert authority, supervision and control and are in charge of procurement in the same as the state authorities. The inquiry has therefore come to the conclusion that it is in principle wrong to incorporate a prohibition against activities that adversely affect confidence in collective agreements, and that there are sound reasons for regulating the prohibition by means of statute at the municipal level as well. It is the opinion of the inquiry that such a prohi- bition with its ancillary regulations cannot be deemed to encroach upon the autonomy of the municipalities. The reasons that have been put for- ward in support of the proposal that regulations in the municipal sector should always be gathered in one place are almost of a practical nature and do not outweigh the objections in principle to regulation by agree- ment. The inquiry has therefore proposed that the regulations concerning extra-occupational activities in the Public Employment Act should apply throughout the entire public sector. The same reasons of principle as those concerning extra-occupational activities adversely affecting confi- dence do not apply with respect to extra-occupational activities adver- sely affecting working practices or those of a competitive nature. These should therefore continue to be regulated by agreements between the parties on the labour market in all parts of the public sector. It is the opinion of the inquiry that these proposals do not entail any econo- mic or other consequences of significance that need to be accounted for separately. Lag om ändring i lagen (1994:260) om of- fentlig anställning Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om lagen (1994:260) om offentlig anställning, dels att 2, 3 och 7 §§ skall ha följande lydelse, dels att det i lagen skall införas fyra nya paragrafer, 7 a - 7 d §§, av följa n- de lydelse. Nuvarande lydelse Föreslagen lydelse Följande föreskrifter i lagen gäller också arbetstagare hos kommuner, landsting och kommunalförbund, nämligen 29 §§ om arbetskonflikter, 7 - 7 c §§ om bisysslor, stycket om vissa un- 23-29 §§ om arbetskonflikter, lagen (1976:580) om 42 § första stycket om vissa undan- medbestämmande i arbetslivet. tag från lagen (1976:580) om medbe- stämmande i arbetslivet. Föreskrifterna i 30 § om periodiska hälsoundersökningar gäller också arbetstagare hos kommuner och landsting. 3.arbetstagare som är lokalanställda av svenska staten utomlands och som inte är svenska medborgare, 4.arbetstagare som har anvisats beredskapsarbete eller skyddat arbete. För justitiekanslern, justitieråden och regeringsråden gäller bara 4 § om bedömningsgrunder vid anställ- ning, 7 § om bisysslor och 23 - 29 §§ om arbetskonflikter. För justitiekanslern, justitieråden och regeringsråden gäller bara 4 § om bedömningsgrunder vid anställ- ning, 7 - 7 d §§ om bisysslor och 23 - 29 §§ om arbetskonflikter. En arbetstagare får inte ha någon anställning eller något uppdrag eller utöva någon verksamhet som kan rubba förtroendet för hans eller nå- gon annan arbetstagares opartiskhet i arbetet eller som kan skada myn- dighetens anseende. En arbetstagare får inte ha någon anställning eller något uppdrag eller utöva någon verksamhet som kan rubba förtroendet för hans eller nå- gon annan arbetstagares opartiskhet i arbetet eller som kan skada myn- dighetens anseende (förtro- endeskadlig bisyssla). Risken för förtroendeskada skall bedömas som särskilt stor, om arbetstagaren eller myndig- heten har uppgifter som innebär 6. ledning av offentlig förvalt- ning. En arbetsgivare som får känne- dom om en förtroendeskadlig bisyssla skall ålägga arbetstaga- ren att upphöra med eller inte åta sig bisysslan. Arbetsgivaren skall informera sina arbetstagare om vilka slags förhållanden som kan göra en bisyssla förtroendeskadlig. En arbetstagare skall på arbets- givarens begäran lämna de upp- gifter som behövs för att arbets- givaren skall kunna bedöma ar- betstagarens bisysslor. Domare som anställs genom be- slut av regeringen och chefer för förvaltningsmyndigheter som ly- der under regeringen skall på eget initiativ anmäla sina bisysslor till arbetsgivaren. Denna lag träder i kraft . Lag om ändring i lagen (1997:1293) om rätt till ledighet för att bedriva näringsverk- samhet Härigenom föreskrivs att 3 § lagen (1997:1293) om rätt till ledighet för att bedriva näringsverksamhet skall ha följande lydelse. En arbetstagare har rätt till hel le- En arbetstagare har rätt till hel le- dighet från sitt arbete under högst dighet från sitt arbete under högst för att själv eller ge- för att själv eller ge- nom juridisk person bedriva närings- nom juridisk person bedriva närings- samhet får dock inte konkurrera samhet får dock inte konkurrera med arbetsgivarens verksamhet. med arbetsgivarens verksamhet. Ledigheten får inte heller innebära väsentlig olägenhet för arbetsgiva- heten får inte heller innebära vä- sentlig olägenhet för arbetsgivarens En arbetstagare har rätt till ledighet endast hos en och samma arbetsgivare. Denna lag träder i kraft . Lag om ändring i lagen (1962:381) om allmän försäkring Härigenom föreskrivs att det i lagen (1962:381) om allmän försäkring skall införas en ny paragraf, 18 kap. 13 a §, av följande lydelse. Direktören skall på eget initi- ativ anmäla sina bisysslor till styrelsen för den allmänna . Denna lag träder i kraft . Förordning om ändring i anställningsför- ordningen (1994:373) Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om anställningsförordningen (1994:373), dels att 3 och 11 §§ skall ha följande lydelse, dels att 12 och 23 §§ skall upphöra att gälla. Nuvarande lydelse Föreslagen lydelse Frågor om anställning skall prövas av den myndighet där arbetstagaren kan komma att bli eller är anställd utom i följande fall: Frågor om anställningens upp- Frågor om anställningens upp- hörande och besked om bisyssla hörande när det gäller chefen för en när det gäller chefen för en förvalt- ningsmyndighet som lyder omedel- bart under regeringen prövas av Frågor om anställningens upp- Frågor om anställningens upp- hörande och besked om bisyssla hörande när det gäller chefen för en när det gäller chefen för en myndig- myndighet som lyder under en an- het som lyder under en annan myn- nan myndighet prövas av den myn- dighet prövas av den myndigheten. 3.Beslut enligt 11 § andra stycket lagen (1994:260) om offentlig anställ- ning att en anställning inte skall upphöra meddelas av regeringen. 4.Frågor om skiljande från arbetsuppgifter enligt 31 § lagen om offent- lig anställning prövas av regeringen. 5.Frågor om förflyttning enligt 8 § lagen (1994:261) om fullmaktsan- ställning till en anställning hos en annan myndighet prövas av regeringen. Vid tillämpningen av bestämmel- serna om bisysslor i lagen sysslor som enligt myndighetens bedömning inte är förenliga med 7 § lagen (1994:260) om offentlig anställning. (1994:260) om offentlig anställ- ning och i kollektivavtal är rege- ringen arbetsgivare för chefer för förvaltningsmyndighet som lyder under regeringen. Denna förordning träder i kraft . Förordning om ändring i förordningen (1980:1030) med hyresnämndsinstruktion Härigenom föreskrivs att 38 § förordningen (1980:1030) med hyres- nämndsinstruktion skall ha följande lydelse. Besked om bisysslor enligt 12 § Vid tillämpningen av bestämmelser- na om bisysslor i lagen (1994:373) lämnas av Tjänsteför- (1994:260) om offentlig anställ- ning och i kollektivavtal är när det gäller arbetstagare som anställs genom beslut av rege- hyresråd och hyresnämnden ar- betsgivare för övriga anställda. bisysslor finns bestämmelser i re för chefen för hyresnämnden och hyresnämnden arbetsgivare för Denna förordning träder i kraft . Förordning om ändring i förordningen (1996:377) med instruktion för Härigenom föreskrivs att 33 § förordningen (1996:377) med instruktion för skall ha följande lydelse. Besked om bisysslor enligt 12 § Vid tillämpningen av bestämmelser- na om bisysslor i lagen (1994:373) lämnas av regeringen (1994:260) om offentlig anställ- när det gäller justitieråd och av ning och i kollektivavtal är stolsväsendet när det gäller kans- arbetsgivare för övriga anställda. för ordföranden i Högsta dom- stolen och ar- betsgivare för övriga anställda. Denna förordning träder i kraft . Förordning om ändring i förordningen (1996:378) med instruktion för Regerings- rätten Härigenom föreskrivs att 32 § förordningen (1996:378) med instruktion för Regeringsrätten skall ha följande lydelse. Besked om bisysslor enligt 12 § anställningsförordningen (1994:373) lämnas av regeringen när det gäller regeringsråd och av när det gäller kanslichefen. Om skyldigheten att anmäla bisysslor finns bestämmelser i kollektivavtal. Vid tillämpningen av avtalsbestämmelserna om bisyss- lor är regeringen arbetsgivare för ordföranden i Regeringsrät- ten och Regeringsrätten arbetsgiva- re för övriga anställda. Vid tillämpningen av bestämmelser- na om bisysslor i lagen (1994:260) om offentlig anställ- ning och i kollektivavtal är stolsväsendet arbetsgivare för regeringsråd och Regeringsrätten arbetsgivare för övriga anställda. Denna förordning träder i kraft . Förordning om ändring i förordningen (1996:379) med hovrättsinstruktion Härigenom föreskrivs att 56 § förordningen (1996:379) med hovrättsin- struktion skall ha följande lydelse. Besked om bisysslor enligt 12 § Vid tillämpningen av bestämmelser- na om bisysslor i lagen (1994:373) lämnas av regeringen (1994:260) om offentlig anställ- när det gäller hovrättspresidenten ning och i kollektivavtal är genom beslut av regeringen. arbetsgivare för övriga anställda. för hovrättspresidenten och hov- rätten arbetsgivare för övriga an- ställda. Denna förordning träder i kraft . Förordning om ändring i förordningen (1996:380) med kammarrättsinstruktion