Termination of an employment contract is a legal action that is considered binding by the person who made it. As a general rule, an employee is therefore bound by their own termination.
However, there are exceptions to this main rule. Through legal practice and statements in preparatory work, an employee's termination may be equated with a termination by the employer. An example of this is if the employee's action has been caused by the employer not acting in accordance with good practice in the labor market (prop. 1973:129 p. 128 f.).
Another example is if there are special circumstances indicating that the termination was not meant seriously and that the other party has realized or should have realized this. In legal practice, an employee has not been considered bound by their termination when the employee has resigned in a hasty manner during a heated exchange and shortly thereafter retracted the termination.
In legal practice, it has also been significant if the employee is inexperienced in working life or has been young, see AD 1983 no. 3.
An employment contract is formally concluded when two parties agree on an employment. This contract is of an individual nature as only the parties directly involved can decide on its conclusion. A main rule is that an employment contract is valid indefinitely, unless other provisions have been agreed upon.
In the event that the employer does not accept a withdrawal of the termination, when circumstances exist that would make a revocation possible, the employer may be considered to have terminated the employee without valid reasons. This means that the employee can request that the termination be declared invalid and be entitled to financial and general damages.
AD 2012 No. 30
The ruling AD 2012 No. 30 concerned a situation in which an employee wished to retract their termination after having resigned three days earlier. The employer did not accept the employee's change of mind, which was deemed equivalent to a termination from the employer's side, and therefore the termination was declared invalid. The question in the case was whether the employee could be considered bound by their termination or not.
According to the information in the case, the employee had indeed been upset at the time of the termination, but the termination had been clear, explicit, and motivated. The employee had also informed their colleagues about the termination. The Labour Court, in an overall assessment, considered that the employee had failed to prove that the termination was not seriously meant.
Therefore, the Labour Court concluded that the employee's termination should not be equated with an action on the part of the employer. The employee was therefore deemed bound by their termination.