Commissioner examines protection of personal integrity in working life

In late September 1999, the Swedish government appointed a commissioner to examine the possible need for stronger protection, either by law or collective agreements, of personal integrity in working life. The issues concerned include drug-tests and other medical controls, as well as privacy issues related to information technology.

At the end of September 1999, the Swedish government charged a special commissioner, Lena Svenaeus- who will shortly be resigning from her post as the Equal Opportunity Ombudsman (jämställdhetsombudsmannen, JämO) - with the task of analysing the possible need of stronger protection for the personal integrity in working life (direktiv nr 1999:73). Issues such as the use of drug-tests and other medical controls will be reviewed, along with issues relating to the use of personal computers, electronic mail and the Internet at work. Other personal integrity matters that may arise during the commissioner's work, especially matters dealing with the protection of job applicants, are also to be considered.

The degree of privacy and protection of personal integrity in working life is generally seen as more limited than it is in other sectors of life. Employees are subject to substantial monitoring, and the employer has access to much information on workers and their work results. While the employer may have a justified interest in monitoring staff in order to manage and allocate work tasks, this has to be set against employees' demands for protection of their personal integrity, the government states.

There is no Swedish legislation at present directly relating to drug-tests and other medical tests at work (SE9711153F). Only two cases have been tried in the Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen, AD), relating to the issue of whether or not a drug-test is acceptable within employment. In the first case, the Labour Court stated that building workers erecting scaffolding were obliged to undergo drug-tests in order to investigate possible use of cannabis. The basis for this judgement (AD 1991 nr 45) was, according to the court, the employees' responsibility for the work environment. In the second case (AD 1998 nr 97) ruled on whether a cleaner at the nuclear power plant in Oskarshamn, in the south-east of Sweden, might be obliged to undergo a test for narcotics and alcohol. The Court considered that the employer had strong reasons to carry out narcotics tests on all workers at the plant, including the cleaners (SE9809111N). However, the cleaner did not have to take a test for alcohol. The use of narcotics is criminal in Sweden, while the use of alcohol is allowed and socially accepted. Drinking habits may be a sensitive issue for an employee's personal integrity, the Court concluded.

The government wants the new commissioner to examine whether issues relating to the protection of personal integrity in working life should be regulated legally or in collective agreements. The commissioner, who must report by 1 April 2001, is to conduct a survey of the employers' needs for monitoring and supervision, and of the integrity problems that may arise.