Roschier has successfully represented Sigma Industry Solutions in a court case before the Malmö District Court

Insights|February 20, 2025

Sigma Industry Solutions has won a landmark case clarifying the definition of “temporary work agency” under Swedish law, with broad implications for the consultancy sector.

On 14 February 2025, the Malmö District Court delivered its judgment in a case between Bjärnums Stålprodukter AB (“Bjärnum”) and Sigma Industry Solutions AB (“Sigma”) (Case No. T 4977-24). The primary issue in this case was whether Sigma should be considered a temporary work agency under the Swedish Agency Work Act (Sw. lag om uthyrning av arbetstagare). The case was the first in which the highly important notion of “temporary work agency” was clarified since the new regulations in the Agency Work Act entered into force in October 2022 and is expected to be of great importance to the consultancy sector in Sweden as a whole.

Background: In February 2024, Bjärnum and Sigma entered into a framework agreement for the procurement and execution of consultancy assignments. Sigma provided a quality consultant to ensure that Bjärnum’s quality system met company and regulatory requirements. The agreement included a non-solicitation clause prohibiting Bjärnum from recruiting Sigma’s employees during and for 12 months after the assignment. If Sigma were considered a temporary work agency, such a non-solicitation clause would have been invalid in accordance with Section 9 of the Agency Work Act.

Court’s Reasoning: The court examined whether Sigma’s employees were employed for the purpose of being assigned to Sigma’s customers to work under such customers’ supervision and direction. The court reasoned that there were several circumstances that indicated that Sigma did not hire consultants for the purpose of being assigned to work under its customers’ supervision and direction. The court stated that while Sigma’s employees perform work under its customers’ supervision and direction to some extent, it had not been shown that Sigma’s employees were hired for this purpose. The court concluded in an overall assessment that it had been shown that Sigma was not a temporary work agency as defined in the Agency Work Act.

Conclusion: Since Sigma was not considered a temporary work agency in the context of the Agency Work Act, the court ruled in favor of Sigma, stating that the non-solicitation clause was valid.