Summary of the decision: During a discussion with a teacher, a head teacher raised the fact that the teacher had initiated an individual meeting with the Swedish Schools Inspectorate at which she expressed opinions about the school’s activities in connection with an inspection of the school.

According to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the teacher had reason to perceive the head teacher’s statements during the discussion as a reprimand for exercising her constitutional freedom of expression. The head teacher has thereby acted in contravention of the constitutional ban on reprisals. The head teacher is criticised for this.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that one prerequisite for effective supervisory activities is that employees feel free to contact and speak to a supervisory authority, and that an employer should in fact encourage them to do so.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman therefore takes a grave view of violations of freedom of expression originating from an employee speaking to a supervisory authority. In the long term, such violations also pose the risk that employees will refrain from approaching a supervisory authority for fear of management’s displeasure.