A health worker was dismissed from his position in the home care service in Oslo municipalty after he had lost his authorisation due to a lack of professional insight. It was undisputed that he could not continue as a health worker after this. The question was whether the municipality was obliged to offer another suitable position.

In contrast to the District Court and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court finds that the dismissal is valid.

Even in cases where the dismissal is due to circumstances of the part of the employee, the employer may be obliged to offer other suitable work. However, whether an offer has been made is only a factor in the assessment of whether the dismissal is a disproportionately severe reaction. An obligation to offer another position is therefore limited and situational. It must be assumed that the reason for the dismissal does not prevent other work, that the employee's interest in continuing the employment relationship is particularly strong, and that the employer has another vacant position to offer. In this individual case, the Supreme Court found that age and seniority indicated that the municipality was obliged to offer another suitable position, but that reasonable inquiries had been made to see whether such a position was vacant in the municipality. The dismissal was therefore objectively justified, even though no alternative work had been offered.

The judgment provides guidance on when the employer is obliged to offer other suitable work in the event of dismissal due to the employee's circumstances.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Area of law: Employment law, section 15-7 of the Working Environment Act

Key paragraphs: 47, 54-61, 77

Justices: Falkanger, Bull, Arntzen, Sæther, Hellerslia