The Swedish Dockworkers Union (SDU) condemns in the strongest terms the trade union victimisation of SDU spokesperson and national deputy chair Erik Helgeson. Erik’s firing came about on the same day as a ruling by the labour courts authorising the union to proceed with its planned six-day boycott of military cargo to and from Israel.

In December 2024, the national membership of the Swedish Dockworkers Union voted 68% in favour of launching a boycott of military cargo to and from Israel in response to the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Initial dates for the blockade were announced by the union in early January 2025. The blockade was quickly challenged by the employer association Ports of Sweden in the country’s labor courts.

The first session in court, on January 29, ended in a one-week postponement after the justices requested further information from both the union and the employers’ association on the anticipated consequences of the blockade.

On February 3, the union had a victory in the courts when the justices issued a unanimous preliminary ruling permitting the union to begin a six-day boycott of military cargo to and from Israeli. The blockade subsequently began on February 4, lasting for six days.

The favourable ruling from the courts, however, came about the same day as employers moved forward with retaliatory measures that had been set in place the previous week. Unbeknownst to the union, the employer had filed a police report against the union’s spokesperson for the campaign and national deputy chair, Erik Helgeson.

On the night of Sunday February 2, as he was finishing his shift, Erik was told by his employer Gothenburg RoRo Terminal to report for a meeting first thing the next morning. Gothenburg RoRo Terminal is majority-owned by the Danish international shipping and logistics firm DFDS.

On the morning of Monday February 3, Erik reported to the meeting accompanied in person by union reps and remotely by the union’s legal council. At the meeting, the employer read a prepared statement informing Erik that he was being fired due a breach of security and disloyalty. The employer refused to answer any questions about the charges in the meeting, leaving the union in the dark as to nature of the accusations. However, the employer stated that they had filed a police report against Erik in connection with the charges, though they declined to share the report they had filed.

The same day, the employer went on a media offensive, putting out a press release via Swedish national radio stating that they had fired an employee due to concerns about national security and including language from Sweden’s national security law. The language in the press release was significantly different to what the employer had presented in the meeting, as charges of breach of security typically concern day to day activities in the port, whereas charges of breach of national security relate to far more serious concerns, such as espionage or aiding a foreign power.

Nevertheless, by Tuesday February 4, the police had made it clear to the public that they were not pursuing charges and that Erik did not have a case to answer for. The police stated that it was obvious that Erik’s statements about the boycott were covered by the legal protections afforded to all citizens in talking to the media – but that even if it wasn’t explicitly covered by law, it still would not be a crime.

On February 21, the union and employer will meet for formal negotiations over Erik’s dismissal. The employer is required to present full details of the charges against Erik in this meeting. If the employer continues to pursue this reckless path of disrespect for civil and trade union rights, the union will have recourse to the courts. Swedish courts have the authority to require employers who lose lawsuits on unfair dismissal to pay fines to the union and the employee and to rehire the employee. However, Swedish law also permits the employer to then buy out the employee without the employee’s consent. The level at which buyout is set by law in Sweden is too low to act as an effective deterrent to large transnational corporations.

The charges made by the employer are wholly unjustifiable given that the boycott has targeted military cargo, not Gothenburg RoRo Terminal, and has been approved by the country’s courts. The frivolous charges and defamatory employer offensive in the media have put Erik and his family at risk. They represent a violation not only of citizens’ rights to speak to the media but also of the special rights afforded to union representatives when acting on behalf of their members. As such, they pose grave threats both to freedom of speech and freedom of association and should not be allowed to stand.

The SDU therefore asks its allies in Sweden and abroad to call on Gothenburg RoRo Terminal and its majority stakeholder DFDS to rescind the accusations they have made against Erik and rehire him immediately.