1) The issue: providing proof of discrimination
An employee, hired in 2005 as a Technician by the company ST Microelectronics, claimed to have been the victim of discrimination because of her sex. To this end, it seized the labor court on June 28, 2016.
Before the referral on the merits, the employee had initiated a first request before the summary proceedings of the labor court, in order to obtain the elements necessary to demonstrate this discrimination.
By an ordinance of October 21, 2015, it was thus ordered “the company to send to the employee, at the latest on December 23, 2015, the documents concerning ten non-anonymous men currently employed within the company and hired on June 22. 2006 (more or less six months) as a level IV workshop technician, step 1, coefficient 255 and containing the following information: the current position, the current coefficient, the current salary, the hiring coefficient, the date of 'hiring and hiring salary'.
The obligation to produce these elements was accompanied by a penalty.
The company had clearly not complied since on October 19, 2018, on the occasion of a new ordinance, the interim committee “ordered the company to pay the employee a provisional sum for the liquidation of the company. penalty "and" ordered the company to give it, no later than November 30, 2018, the same documents "and specified" that failing this, from December 1, 2018, the delivery of these documents will be accompanied by a final penalty per day of delay ”, while reserving the right to liquidate this penalty.
The employee intended to obtain the liquidation of the penalty payment.
2) Anonymization: an obstacle to admissible communication according to the Grenoble Court of Appeal
The Grenoble Court of Appeal did not grant the employee's request. Indeed, it retained that "the payslips of an employee included personal data so that the company was legitimate to seek the authorization of the employees".
According to her, “the employer had only been ordered to communicate the starting salary, the current position, the current coefficient, the current salary, the hiring coefficient, the date of hiring and the starting salary of ten non-anonymous men currently employed within the company and hired on June 22, 2016 (more or less six months) and in no case their pay slips ”.
Thus, it considered that the payslip containing personal information such as the age or the address of the employees, the company was justified in seeking the authorization of the employees concerned before proceeding to the communication of the elements requested by the employee. judge.
As a result, she refused to order the company to pay the employee a certain amount as a temporary penalty.
The employee then appealed to the Supreme Court.
To read all the article please click on the link below
To read or reread also:
Référé article 145 du CPC : une dessinatrice obtient les bulletins de paie de ses 8 collègues https://www.village-justice.com/articles/refere-probatoire-une-dessinatrice-obtient-les-bulletins-paie-collegues-pour,37837.html
Frédéric CHHUM avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
Claire Chardès M2 DPRT Paris Assas
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)
.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083