2025-11-052025/26:AU4 · p.2AULabour market
The future design of rules on suspension of state employees
Grounds for suspending state employees and the duty to negotiate such decisions
What's at stake: The decision affects the job security and legal safeguards of state employees who risk suspension, as well as how much influence union representatives have before such a decision is made, while also affecting agencies' ability to act quickly to protect trust in their operations.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the proposed grounds for suspending a state employee - that the employee has behaved in a way that could lead to dismissal or termination - and the exemption from the duty to negotiate under the Co-Determination Act should be kept as proposed, or whether the rules should be made clearer and narrower and be made subject to a duty to negotiate.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee notes that provisions already exist in both the constitution and ordinary law to ensure that public authorities observe objectivity and impartiality, and that an authority may only take action with a basis in law. A decision on suspension must be made on objective grounds and requires a clear link between the employee's behaviour and the risk that continued work is judged to pose to the authority's operations, so the motion calling for different grounds is rejected by the committee. Regarding the exemption of suspension decisions from the duty to negotiate under the Co-Determination Act, the committee agrees that such decisions often need to be made swiftly to avoid losing their effect, that similar exemptions already exist for several other types of decisions concerning state employees, and that the risk of arbitrary decisions is limited since state employers must always follow the principles of objectivity, impartiality and proportionality. This part of the motion is also rejected by the committee.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 1 (V)
The reservation (V) argues that the government's bill is largely reasonable, but objects to the grounds for suspension in the part concerning an employee having behaved in a way that could be assumed to lead to dismissal or termination. The provision is considered too vague and broad and risks leading to far-reaching interpretations, partly because even indirectly related circumstances could be used as grounds for suspension - which, according to the reservation, creates a risk of arbitrary application and insecure, anxious workplaces. The reservation also objects to exempting suspension decisions from the duty to negotiate under the Co-Determination Act; a right to consultation with the employer is considered insufficient to safeguard the employee's rights, whereas a duty to negotiate could contribute to a more legally secure process and make it possible to find a voluntary, more suitable solution between the parties. The reservation calls on the government to return with a revised bill.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 1 by V.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
What each plan points to — and how the party voted
For each party: the vote its own election manifesto and party programme point to in this case, next to how the party actually voted. A plan can only point to Yes or No; a party can also abstain.
| Plan | Vote | Confidence | Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | No | No 0/19/0/3 | follows the plan | confidence: high | explicit |
| S | No | Yes 91/0/0/15 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | derived |
| MP | No | Abstain 0/0/15/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| C | No | Yes 19/0/0/5 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | derived |
| L | No | Yes 14/0/0/2 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | derived |
| KD | No | Yes 16/0/0/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | derived |
| M | No | Yes 58/0/0/10 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | derived |
| SD | Yes | Yes 61/0/0/11 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | derived |
Committee proposal
Parliament rejects the motions 2025/26:176 by Ciczie Weidby et al. (V) claims 1 and 2 and 2025/26:303 by Leila Ali Elmi et al. (MP).
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna 2025/26:176 av Ciczie Weidby m.fl. (V) yrkandena 1 och 2 samt 2025/26:303 av Leila Ali Elmi m.fl. (MP).
Riksdag decision: Parliament approved the government's proposal that public authorities shall be able to suspend employees. That opportunity shall apply if an employee is in a situation that has led to termination or that can be expected to lead to termination or dismissal. Among other things, the following apply to the proposal: The suspension shall take effect immediately and for a certain period which may be up to a maximum of two months at a time. If the collective agreement does not say otherwise shall the employee retain his or her salary and other employment benefits during the suspension period. If the employee is a member of the union, the employer needs to inform the employee organization about the suspension; if that is not done, the employee may have the right to damages. This also applies if the employer violates certain procedural requirements. The law changes enter into force 1 January 2026.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants to make the grounds for suspending civil servants clearer and ensure that negotiation requirements apply. (V) — Reservation 1
Plan vs actual vote
Every party, in chamber order: what its own plan pointed to, how it voted, and the reasoning behind both. Highlighted rows are where the two differ — but a vote that follows the plan is a result too, so the reasoning is there for every party.
The plan explicitly promises to defend bargaining rights and strong labour law, and establishes that collective agreements and labour law protect employees from arbitrariness and tyranny.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan explicitly promises to defend bargaining rights and strong labour law, and establishes that collective agreements and labour law protect employees from arbitrariness and tyranny. Exempting suspension decisions from the bargaining requirement under the Co-Determination Act goes straight against that, and a vaguely formulated suspension ground creates precisely the insecurity the plan wants to get rid of. The counter-proposal's demand for clearer grounds and preserved bargaining obligation is therefore supported by the plan.
Original (Swedish)
Planen lovar uttryckligen att försvara förhandlingsrätten och en stark arbetsrättslagstiftning, och slår fast att kollektivavtalen och arbetsrätten skyddar anställda från maktfullkomlighet och godtycke. Att undanta avstängningsbeslut från förhandlingsskyldigheten enligt medbestämmandelagen går rakt emot det, och en vagt formulerad avstängningsgrund skapar just den otrygghet planen vill bort från. Motförslagets krav på tydligare grunder och bevarad förhandlingsskyldighet stöds därför av planen.
- defence of bargaining rightsdecisive»Vänsterpartiet kommer att fortsätta försvara förhandlingsrätten och en stark arbetsrättslagstiftning.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The Left Party will continue to defend bargaining rights and strong labour law.”
- protection against arbitrariness»Kollektivavtalen och arbetsrättslagstiftningen säkerställer ett grundläggande inflytande och skyddar oss anställda från maktfullkomlighet och godtycke.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Collective agreements and labour law ensure fundamental influence and protect us employees from arbitrariness and tyranny.”
- more secure jobs through labour law»Vi vill skapa tryggare jobb genom att utveckla arbetsrätten.« (party programme ↗)“We want to create more secure jobs by developing labour law.”
- strengthened wage earner positions»Vi vill förändra konflikträtten och annan lagstiftning för att stärka löntagarnas positioner.« (party programme ↗)“We want to change conflict law and other legislation to strengthen wage earners' positions.”
The plan requires strong labour law legislation, stronger position for trade unions and an increased democratization of working life with strong co-determination and employee participation.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires strong labour law legislation, stronger position for trade unions and an increased democratization of working life with strong co-determination and employee participation. Vague and broad grounds for suspension and an exemption from the negotiation requirement according to the co-determination law go against these commitments. The counter-proposal's requirement for clearer grounds and preserved negotiation requirement is therefore supported.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver stark arbetsrättslig lagstiftning, starkare ställning för fackförbunden och en ökad demokratisering av arbetslivet med starkt medinflytande och medbestämmande för löntagarna. Vaga och breda avstängningsgrunder och ett undantag från förhandlingsskyldigheten enligt medbestämmandelagen går emot dessa åtaganden. Motförslagets krav på tydligare grunder och bevarad förhandlingsskyldighet stöds därför.
- co-determination in working lifedecisive»En ökad demokratisering av arbetslivet är nödvändig, med starkt« (party programme ↗)“An increased democratization of working life is necessary, with strong”
- strong labour law»Stark arbetsrättslig lagstiftning.« (party programme ↗)“Strong labour law legislation.”
- stronger union influence»Starkare ställning för fackförbunden för ökat löntagarinflytande.« (party programme ↗)“Stronger position for trade unions for increased employee influence.”
- the Swedish model»Kollektivavtal som norm, försvar av den svenska modellen.« (party programme ↗)“Collective agreements as the norm, defence of the Swedish model.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan cherishes the Swedish model and collective bargaining, wants to encourage union organizing and strengthen employee rights.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan cherishes the Swedish model and collective bargaining, wants to encourage union organizing and strengthen employee rights. The counter-proposal wants to make the grounds for suspension clearer and maintain the bargaining obligation according to the co-determination law, which lies in line with both the collective bargaining model and the requirement for legal certainty in new legislation. The plan does not specifically address suspension of public employees.
Original (Swedish)
Planen värnar den svenska modellen och partsförhandlingen, vill uppmuntra facklig organisering och stärka arbetstagarnas rättigheter. Motförslaget vill göra grunderna för avstängning tydligare och behålla förhandlingsskyldigheten enligt medbestämmandelagen, vilket ligger i linje med både partsmodellen och kravet på rättssäkerhet i ny lagstiftning. Planen behandlar inte avstängning av statligt anställda särskilt.
- the collective bargaining model is cherisheddecisive»Miljöpartiet värnar den svenska modellen, där fackföreningar och arbetsgivare« (party programme ↗)“The Green Party cherishes the Swedish model, where unions and employers”
- strengthened employee rights»Miljöpartiet vill stärka arbetstagarnas rättigheter och ställa tydligare krav på arbetsgivare« (party programme ↗)“The Green Party wants to strengthen employee rights and place clearer requirements on employers”
- union organizing is encouraged»Därför ska facklig organisering uppmuntras.« (party programme ↗)“Therefore, union organizing shall be encouraged.”
- legally certain legislation»prövas noggrant utifrån rättssäkerhet och grundläggande fri- och rättigheter.« (party programme ↗)“be tested carefully on the basis of legal certainty and fundamental freedoms and rights.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan advocates that labour market rules be set between the parties to the greatest possible extent rather than through legislation, which speaks for the negotiation obligation being retained in suspension.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan advocates that labour market rules be set between the parties to the greatest possible extent rather than through legislation, which speaks for the negotiation obligation being retained in suspension. The plan also requires that the rule of law and the individual's rights against the state be defended, which weighs against vaguely worded suspension grounds that risk arbitrary application. The counter-proposal's requirement for clearer and more defined grounds thus aligns with the plan.
Original (Swedish)
Planen förespråkar att arbetsmarknadens spelregler i mesta möjliga mån fastställs mellan parterna snarare än genom lagstiftning, vilket talar för att förhandlingsskyldigheten behålls vid avstängning. Planen kräver dessutom att rättsstaten och individens rättigheter gentemot staten försvaras, vilket väger mot vagt formulerade avstängningsgrunder som riskerar godtycklig tillämpning. Motförslagets krav på tydligare och mer avgränsade grunder ligger därför i linje med planen.
- party model over legislationdecisive»Centerpartiet förespråkar en modell där spelreglerna för arbetsmarknaden i mesta möjliga mån fastställs mellan« (party programme ↗)“The Centre Party advocates a model where labour market rules are set between”
- legal certainty against the state»Rättsstaten och individens rättigheter gentemot staten måste försvaras. Vi säger därför nej till visitationszoner, kollektiv bestraffning, omvänd bevisbörda, anonyma vittnen, preventiv avlyssning och inskränkningar av religionsfriheten.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The rule of law and the individual's rights against the state must be defended. We therefore say no to search zones, collective punishment, reversed burden of proof, anonymous witnesses, preventive wiretapping and restrictions of freedom of religion.”
- protection for the employee»Reglerna på arbetsmarknaden ska i lika hög grad skydda« (party programme ↗)“Rules on the labour market shall to an equal degree protect”
- clear enforceable rights»Vi vill se en rättighetslagstiftning, ett tydligt samhällskontrakt med utkrävbara rättigheter.« (party programme ↗)“We want to see rights legislation, a clear social contract with enforceable rights.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan establishes that legal security and protection of civil liberties and rights need to be strengthened and that individuals' opportunities to assert their rights against authorities must increase.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan establishes that legal security and protection of civil liberties and rights need to be strengthened and that individuals' opportunities to assert their rights against authorities must increase. It furthermore values the Swedish model where conditions are mainly determined by agreements rather than by law. The counter-proposal's demand for clearer and more limited grounds for suspension and maintained negotiation obligation is therefore in line with the plan.
Original (Swedish)
Planen slår fast att rättssäkerheten och skyddet för de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna behöver förstärkas och att den enskildes möjligheter att hävda sina rättigheter gentemot myndigheterna måste öka. Den värnar dessutom den svenska modellen där villkoren i huvudsak bestäms genom avtal och inte i lag. Motförslagets krav på tydligare och mer avgränsade avstängningsgrunder och bibehållen förhandlingsskyldighet ligger därmed i linje med planen.
- strengthened legal securitydecisive»Rättssäkerheten och skyddet för de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna behöver förstärkas.« (party programme ↗)“Legal security and protection of civil liberties and rights need to be strengthened.”
- the partnership model before law»Den svenska arbetsmarknadsmodellen, där villkoren i huvudsak bestäms genom« (party programme ↗)“The Swedish labour market model, where conditions are mainly determined by”
- trade union freedom and collective bargaining»Den fackliga friheten och möjligheten till kollektivavtal är en viktig del av förenings- och« (party programme ↗)“The right of association and the possibility for collective bargaining is an important part of freedom of association and”
- individuals' rights against authorities»Den enskildes möjligheter att hävda sina rättigheter gentemot myndigheterna måste öka.« (party programme ↗)“Individuals' opportunities to assert their rights against authorities must increase.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The party programme requires that employment law provides reasonable employment protection, that good employment security is pursued, and that strong trade unions protect the rights of wage-earners.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme requires that employment law provides reasonable employment protection, that good employment security is pursued, and that strong trade unions protect the rights of wage-earners. The counter-proposal's requirements for clearer and more clearly defined grounds for suspension and for retained negotiation obligations follow from these commitments. The employer's right to direct work is in the plan but does not justify vague grounds for action against individuals.
Original (Swedish)
Principprogrammet kräver att arbetsrätten ger ett rimligt anställningsskydd, att god anställningstrygghet eftersträvas och att starka fackföreningar tillvaratar löntagarnas rättigheter. Motförslagets krav på tydligare och mer avgränsade avstängningsgrunder och på bibehållen förhandlingsskyldighet följer av dessa åtaganden. Arbetsgivarens rätt att leda arbetet finns i planen men motiverar inte vaga grunder för ingripande mot enskilda.
- reasonable employment protectiondecisive»Den arbetsrättsliga lagstiftningen ska ge ett rimligt anställningsskydd för arbetstagaren« (party programme ↗)“Employment law legislation must provide reasonable employment protection for the employee”
- good employment security»God anställningstrygghet för alla arbetstagare ska eftersträvas.« (party programme ↗)“Good employment security for all employees must be pursued.”
- the unions' role in collective bargaining»Starka och partipolitiskt oberoende fackföreningar är en oundgänglig del av ett demokratiskt samhälle för att tillvarata löntagarnas rättigheter och intressen« (party programme ↗)“Strong and politically independent trade unions are an indispensable part of a democratic society for protecting the rights and interests of wage-earners”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan lacks commitments on suspension rules for civil servants, but the party programme states that all public exercise of power must be lawbound and guided by equal treatment and predictability, and power must not be exercised arbitrarily.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan lacks commitments on suspension rules for civil servants, but the party programme states that all public exercise of power must be lawbound and guided by equal treatment and predictability, and power must not be exercised arbitrarily. Clearer and more defined grounds for suspension align with this principle. The plan therefore comes closest to the counter-proposal's requirements.
Original (Swedish)
Planen saknar åtaganden om avstängningsregler för statligt anställda, men partiprogrammet slår fast att all offentlig maktutövning ska vara lagstyrd och vägledas av likabehandling och förutsebarhet och att makt inte får utövas godtyckligt. Tydligare och mer avgränsade grunder för avstängning ligger i linje med den principen. Planen ligger därför närmast motförslagets krav.
- lawbound exercise of powerdecisive»All offentlig maktutövning ska vara lagstyrd och vägledas av« (party programme ↗)“All public exercise of power must be lawbound and guided by”
- prohibition on arbitrariness»utövas godtyckligt, eller på ett sätt som diskriminerar.« (party programme ↗)“exercised arbitrarily, or in a way that discriminates.”
- professional administration»Den är lagstyrd, professionell och« (party programme ↗)“It is lawbound, professional and”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan wants to prevent clans, organized crime and Islamists from infiltrating government agencies and reintroduce civil servant accountability, which presumes that the state can quickly remove unsuitable employees.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan wants to prevent clans, organized crime and Islamists from infiltrating government agencies and reintroduce civil servant accountability, which presumes that the state can quickly remove unsuitable employees. The counter-proposal wants to narrow the grounds for suspension and retain the negotiation obligation according to the co-determination law, which makes such interventions more difficult. The plan also wants to reduce trade unions' special position in government agency decisions on the work environment.
Original (Swedish)
Planen vill motverka att klaner, organiserad brottslighet och islamister infiltrerar samhällsorgan och återinföra tjänstemannaansvaret, vilket förutsätter att staten snabbt kan stänga av olämpliga anställda. Motförslaget vill smalna av avstängningsgrunderna och behålla förhandlingsskyldigheten enligt medbestämmandelagen, vilket försvårar sådana ingripanden. Planen vill dessutom minska fackförbundens särställning i myndighetsbeslut om arbetsmiljön.
- protect agencies from infiltrationdecisive»Att klaner, organiserad brottslighet och islamister infiltrerar samhällsorgan är ett växande hot mot den demokratiska modellen.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“That clans, organized crime and Islamists infiltrate government agencies is a growing threat to the democratic model.”
- counter clan power»Motverka klanernas makt, både inom det offentliga och inom civilsamhället« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Counter the power of clans, both within the public sector and within civil society”
- civil servant accountability»Införa tjänstemannaansvar« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Introduce civil servant accountability”
- reduced trade union special status»Sverigedemokraterna vill avpolitisera arbetsmiljöarbetet genom att avveckla politiskt styrda fackförbunds företrädesrätt att utse skyddsombud.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Sweden Democrats want to depoliticize work environment efforts by eliminating politically controlled trade unions' preferential right to appoint safety representatives.”
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2025/26:AU4)
- Committee report full text (HD01AU4)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2025/26:176 — med anledning av prop. 2024/25:204 Regler om avstängning av statligt anställda av Ciczie Weidby m.fl. (V)
- Motion 2025/26:303 — med anledning av prop. 2024/25:204 Regler om avstängning av statligt anställda av Leila Ali Elmi m.fl. (MP)
- Proposition 2024/25:204 — Regler om avstängning av statligt anställda
Source: The Swedish Parliament