Rehire Fired Swedish Docker V. Chair Erik Helgeson-Rally at SF Swedish Consulate

Graphic For Rally For Swedish Docker Vice Chair Erich Helgeson to demand his rehiring and for global labor boycott all military and economic cargo to Israel.

CARDS ON THE TABLE: WHY ERIK’S DISMISSAL IS NOT A PERSONAL MATTER BUT AN ATTACK ON OUR UNION



CARDS ON THE TABLE: WHY ERIK’S DISMISSAL IS NOT A PERSONAL MATTER BUT AN ATTACK ON OUR UNION
After consultation with the union on Friday, February 21, it became clear that the employer Gothenburg RoRo Terminal (GRT) and the majority owner DFDS intend to proceed with the dismissal of the vice-chairman of the Swedish Dockworkers’ Union, Erik Helgeson, despite the lack of legal grounds.
The company, through a police report and press release and comments in the press, has deliberately tried to create an image that Erik has violated the Security Protection Act. He has been given notice of dismissal ”with reference to national security”, placing him and our union in a very difficult situation. In a legal process, it is normally the employer who has the obligation to provide objective reasons to take away the livelihood of an employee and union representative. However, given the media exposure that Erik has been subjected to, followed by weeks in which the employer has refused to comment or specify its accusations, it is instead the employee who must publicly try to prove his innocence in order to defend himself.
The Swedish Dockworkers’ Union will therefore try to be as transparent as possible in this matter.
About the police report

Before and during the initial notice of termination on February 3, the employer only stated that the termination was motivated by statements and actions that allegedly constituted a violation of the Security Protection Act and disloyalty linked to the same law. When asked directly, it also emerged that the employer had filed a police report on January 28 – six days before Erik was suspended from the workplace.
About an hour after Erik’s notice meeting ended, the Labor Court announced its interim decision regarding the Dockworkers Union’s notified blockade targeting military cargo to and from Israel. The industrial action was deemed to be lawful through a unanimous decision of the court.
Despite the fact that all criminal charges had been dropped by the responsible authorities, GRT/DFDS maintained during the consultation with the union on 21 February that it stands by its intention to dismiss Erik Helgeson. A written statement of the reasons has not yet been submitted by the employer. Therefore, the employer’s oral statements from the meeting and the Dockworkers Union’s comments on these are reported below:
 
Breach of the Security Protection Act
The employer maintains that Erik has violated the Security Protection Act, by personally drawing attention to himself and the company in a way that has made the company’s customer relations and Sweden’s national defense more difficult. However, the employer refuses to clarify what Erik has done that would constitute a breach of the Security Protection Act. The company also refused to clarify why they believe Erik is covered by the Security Protection Act given that he does not have a security-classified position.
The Dockworkers Union’s position is clear. Erik has never made a statement about his employer GRT/DFDS or the Port of Gothenburg in connection with the announced national blockade. Nor has he made any statements other than expressing the union’s democratically decided position to protest against Sweden’s continued arms trade with Israel in light of what is happening in Gaza. It is not voluntary for Erik to express the union’s position publicly – it is expected of him in his role as a representative elected by the members.
The Swedish Dockworkers’ Union strongly doubts that any of the journalists who interviewed Erik about the blockade in recent months even knew that GRT/DFDS was his employer before the company gave him notice of termination and sent out a press release stating that this was done ”in consideration of national security”.
 
Disloyalty
Erik is alleged to have contacted current and potential customers of GRT/DFDS in connection with the blockade, which is believed to have damaged the company’s finances. The employer claims that Erik as a result put other interests ahead of the employer’s and thereby violated the duty of loyalty.
The Swedish Dockworkers’ Union would like to clarify that freedom of association means that trade unions can of course have interests that conflict with the economic interests of the employer. Trade union representatives therefore have the right to present information or demands even if they are considered financially disadvantageous by an employer or employer organization. This is a self-evident part of the trade union mission.
In Erik’s case, however, the claim itself is factually incorrect. He has not been in contact with any customer companies. However, the Dockworkers’ Union has, through union chairman Martin Berg, contacted most of Sweden’s largest arms export companies to inform them about the blockade.
 
Violation of the company’s Code of Conduct
During the meeting with the trade union on February 21, the employer added accusations that Erik had behaved ”threateningly” towards management and had behaved in ”unacceptable” and ”inappropriate” ways towards both dockworkers and management.
Two incidents were cited in support of this, one from 2020 and one from 2023. Both relate to his actions as a trade union representative in the workplace.
The incident from 2020 concerned an issue that arose in the early stages of the Covid pandemic, when several members of the terminal were very worried about going to work as they, their children, their partners or cohabiting parents belonged to particularly vulnerable risk groups.
A ship arrived at the terminal one morning and members of the crew were taken by ambulance to hospital because they had fallen ill with Covid 19. The dockworkers and the Swedish Dockworkers’ Union’s safety reps were not informed of this or that the ship would be quarantined, but were instead ordered to unload goods as usual. Later in the day, however, information emerged from the Rosenhill Seamen’s Center that a general warning to affected parties had already been issued before the ship in question arrived in Gothenburg. This led to widespread anger and fear among the dockworkers, not least among those who had interacted with the crew during the unloading operation.
Erik and the Dockworkers’ Union’s chief safety representative then went into the foreman’s office to talk to the manager in charge about what had happened. A heated discussion ensued, with some swearing and a raised voices. However, it ended on a positive note with Erik apologizing to the manager in question for raising his voice and those involved shaking hands.
Some time later, Erik was called in for a meeting in which the company management said that his behavior had been perceived as aggressive and that he should therefore be given a reprimand. However, it was clear at the meeting that it was not the manager who experienced Erik’s behavior as aggressive, but rather an unnamed person who was in an adjacent room. Erik maintains that he was not threatening but regrets if a third party felt uncomfortable.
The second incident from 2023 is well documented and the documents are available in Swedish on the website of the Dockworkers Union.
Erik Helgeson was the main union representative in negotiations about changed working hours at the terminal. During the negotiation, the employer’s representative became angry because the union was critical of parts of the proposed scheme, and stood up and shouted at Erik to leave the room. Eight days later, Erik received a reminder for having ”puffed, groaned and rolled his eyes” during the negotiation.
The Dockworkers’ Union’s view is that neither of these two incidents is of such a serious nature that they should have even prompted a reprimand from the beginning, let alone constitute grounds for dismissal. It is simply nonsense. Rather, they indicate that the employer seems to have tried to accumulate ”incidents” over a long period of time in order to later use them against Erik. The result, after he has worked for twenty years at the ro-ro terminal, can be said to be meager at best.
During the discussion about the dismissal, the employer further claimed that Erik Helgeson underwent training in the company’s Code of Conduct on November 17, 2021 and should therefore be well acquainted with the content. This is also incorrect. Erik has never participated in any such training and on the relevant date he was at a union board meeting, where, among other things, he was appointed as the Dockworkers Union’s representative in the Personnel Foundation in the Port of Gothenburg.
 
The labor law process
The collective bargaining agreement provides for the union to request that the employer consider suspension without pay for a period of time, instead of proceeding with a dismissal. A suspension negotiation was requested during the consultation, and the negotiation took place on Monday, March 3.
On Friday, February 28, the Dockworkers’ Union has also requested a dispute hearing regarding a violation of the Shop Stewardship Act, as Erik, a union shop steward, is prevented from fulfilling his duties as he has been suspended from the workplace for almost a month.
The union will also request damages on a number of different grounds:

• That GRT did not meet the requirements for a consultation, by not answering questions and not engaging in a good-faith conversation to resolve the situation.

• That GRT is violating the Employment Protection Act, the Shop Stewardship Act and the provisions on freedom of association in the Co-determination Act and the CBA..
 
Update after negotiations March 3
On Monday afternoon, two local negotiations were held with the employer regarding the notice-given dismissal of Erik Helgeson.
One concerned the collective bargaining agreement-regulated possibility for the employer to suspend an employee for a period of time, instead of terminating him. No agreement could be reached, and the employer maintained its intention to terminate Erik. The employer has requested central negotiations in the matter. As long as negotiations regarding suspension are ongoing, the employer cannot carry out the termination.
The second negotiation concerned a violation of the Shop Stewardship Act. The union submitted that GRT/DFDS actions are such that the exclusion of Erik from his workplace constitutes an obstacle to the union shop steward from carrying out his duties. This will also proceed to central dispute negotiations. The Dock Workers’ Union has filed a request for interpretation priority in the dispute, but the employer appears to be ignoring this and Erik remains excluded from GRT.
On Monday, the union received a written statement of the reasons for Erik’s dismissal, which was initially classified as a written statement in accordance with labor law. However, the document was withdrawn at the meeting and replaced by an identical document where the heading and the CEO’s signature had been removed. The written document did not contain any new accusations, even if the wording had changed in some respects since the union meeting on February 21. The employer therefore also stands by the claims that are demonstrably incorrect, such as that Erik has been in contact with customers regarding the union blockade against military equipment to and from Israel, and that he participated in a Code of Conduct training on November 17, 2021. Otherwise, the employer continued to refuse to comment on its claims or answer questions.
 
Update after negotiation March 14
On Friday, a central hearing was held with the employer Gothenburg RoRo Terminals regarding their notice to dismiss the Vice Chairman of the Dockworkers’ Union, Erik Helgeson.
Despite the allegations of violations of the Security Protection Act being deemed unfounded by both the police and the Chancellor of Justice, the employer has not withdrawn the notice of dismissal. During the hearing, GRT announced that they are also not agreeing to temporarily suspend Helgeson instead of dismissing him. No new reasons for dismissal were presented by the employer, which means that the information further down this page still applies.
The employer’s next step is to hand over the notice of determination for Erik so sign.
Erik Helgeson was not present at the hearing himself, but was represented by his union representatives and legal counsel.
After the hearing, the employer phoned Erik and asked him to come in for a meeting. Shortly afterwards, they also came to the union office looking for Erik to sign the notice of termination. This is perceived by the union as pure harassment, as the usual procedure is to send the notice of termination by registered letter to the person if they are not present.