Summaries of selected statements | 65 However, as the teacher’s comment on Facebook was highly critical of the school management and general in form, the Ombudsman was understanding of the fact that the municipality had found that it could not fail to act on the comment. The Ombudsman emphasised that the municipality would have been entitled to refute the comment in a different way as long as it did not criticise the fact that the teacher had used his freedom of expression. 2019-31. Municipality had no basis for cancelling employment agreement A municipality appointed a student of social education as a paid trainee for a period of six months. Until further notice, her place of employment was to be a school, and she was later moved to a residential facility. The trainee only partly completed her traineeship – among other reasons because of sickness absence – and her place of study therefore did not consider her to have fulfilled her training requirement. The municipality subsequently appointed the woman in a new six-month traineeship. Until further notice, her place of employment was to be one of the municipality’s other residential facilities. However, before the woman started her new traineeship, the municipality decided to cancel the employment agreement. The municipality was of the opinion that she had accepted not to go through with the traineeship. Based on the available information, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the woman had not accepted the cancellation of the agreement. The municipality’s cancellation was thus to be regarded as unilateral. On that basis, the Ombudsman stated that the cancellation could not be presumed to be in accordance with the views on false pretences taken in case law and Ombudsman practice. In particular, he referred to the fact that when the municipality appointed the woman, it had been aware of the relevant information about, among other things, her sickness absence during her then traineeship. He added that the woman did not appear to have failed to disclose essential information to the municipality in connection with her appointment. The municipality had so far had no cause to consider whether it could have terminated the woman’s employment with notice instead of cancelling the employment agreement, and the Ombudsman therefore had no basis for commenting on this question. The Ombudsman recommended that the municipality reopen the case and in this connection consider the consequences of the fact that the municipality had no basis for cancelling the employment agreement. Other authorities etc. within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction No statements on cases concluded in 2019 have been published.