Criticism of Gislaved Municipality for violating the prohibition on reprisals with regard to an employee exercising his freedom of expression on Facebook. Also criticism of the municipality for failing to meet its obligation to assist the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation

Summary of the decision: On his own initiative, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has reviewed the measures taken by Gislaved Municipality against an employee of Gislaved Upper Secondary School in response to an opinion he expressed on Facebook concerning a municipal bridge construction project.

The headteacher of the school and the municipality’s head of upper secondary education held a meeting with the employee with the support of notes provided by Human Resources. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the discussion was conducted in a manner that could not be construed as anything other than a reprimand to the employee for expressing an opinion on the municipality’s operations. The municipality has thereby acted in contravention of the constitutional ban on reprisals. The municipality is criticised for this.

In its initial statement to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, the Municipal Executive Committee failed to mention certain information that was highly significant to the assessment of whether there had been a violation of the prohibition on reprisals, this despite the fact that the information must at the very least have been known to the involved officials. According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, this incomplete initial statement means that the municipality cannot be deemed to have met its obligation pursuant to the Instrument of Government (1974:152) to assist the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation. The municipality is also criticised for this.