Articles

Court of Appeal admits that it is possible to rule out the application of the scale when an application of the ceiling would result in a disproportionate infringement of the employee’s rights

An employee who justifies an exposure to a toxic substance that poses a high risk of developing a serious pathology and personal anxiety resulting from such exposure, may take action against his employer for failure to comply with the obligation of security. This is the ruling of the Court of Cassation in a judgment that opens the way to compensation for the damage suffered by former miners, because of their exposure to various carcinogenic substances. The financial stake is significant : in this case 700 employees claim compensation

There is dissension over the so-called “Macron indemnity scale” (barème Macron), instituted in September 2017 by one of the “Macron orders” (ordonnances): in the event of unfair dismissal, an indemnity scale has been defined, with a base and a cap on compensation by the Courts. While some Industrial Tribunals have disregarded the indemnity scale on the basis that it contradicts international norms, others have taken the opposite view. Consulted on an advisory basis, the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) issued an opinion on 17 July 2019, according to which, the indemnity scale does not contradict international norms. Being a “mere” opinion however – rather than a judgment – it is not binding on the Lower Courts. A number of Industrial Tribunals have thus chosen to disregard the Supreme Court’s view and have refused to apply the indemnity scale. The issue will come before several Appeals Courts in late September

In order for a Labour Inspector to validly consider a request for permission to dismiss, he must take into account all mandates held by the protected employee, including those outwith the company as such, i.e. representative mandates that do not concern the company directly.  The Conseil d’État has just stressed that the employee will be entitled to protection, if it can be shown that by the date on which the preliminary hearing was held, the employer had learnt of the mandate(s), whether from the employee himself or in some other way

The Supreme Court has specified that the original copy of the mutually agreed termination document (rupture conventionnelle) that is provided to the employee must be signed by the employer. Failure to comply with this obligation is sanctioned by the agreement being deemed null and void. The court rejected the notion of a presumption of such a document having been provided to the employee, regardless of the fact that the document specifies that it was done in two original copies