frederic.chhum

Par frederic.chhum le 30/08/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 mois 2 semaines

When an employee accuses its employer of breaches of his employment contract (shelving, non-payment of overtime, non-compliance with the standard minimums, etc.), he/she may take the initiative and ask the judge for judicial termination (résiliation judiciaire) from its employment contract to the employer's excusive agreement or take note of the termination (prise d’acte de rupture) of the employment contract.

The interest of these two processes for the employee, is to obtain the judge that judges the rupture in unfair dismissal with profit of the damages of rupture (notice period, paid holidays, dismissal indemnity) and the damages for unfair dismissal.

The effects of judicial termination are different from those of taking action.

In both cases, there must be a serious breach (faute grave) of the employer.

1) The judicial termination (résiliation judiciaire) of the employment contract with the employer

The employee asks the judge to pronounce the termination of the employment contract to the exclusive tenets of the employer.

But the employer's failings must be serious enough.

The appreciation of this gravity is the sovereign power of the judges of the merits.

Is regarded as a sufficiently serious breach: non-compliance with the obligation to pay wages, non-compliance with the rules applicable to the medical supervision of disabled workers, non-payment of overtime, in case of moral harassment Failure to respect the principle of equal work, equal pay, etc.

When the proof of the deficiencies is reported and they are sufficiently serious, the judicial termination is then pronounced with the wrongs of the employer and produces the effects of a dismissal without cause real and serious of the day where the judge pronounces it.

2) The act of breaking the employment (prise d’acte de rupture du contrat de travail) contract with the employer

It is a type of unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employee, a response to what he considers to be an employer's breach of his contractual obligations.

These must generally be sufficiently serious breaches by the employer.

The act of breaking act produces the effects of either dismissal without real and serious cause if the facts invoked by the employee justified it, or, in the opposite case, a resignation. If the employee has not given notice, when taking action, he may be ordered to owe the employer damages in the amount of the notice.

The employee takes the initiative to terminate his employment contract, but intends to blame the employer for the breach. No formalism is required; however, we strongly recommend doing so by registered letter (LRAR).

The employee cannot retract from his act.

3) The Differences Between Judicial Termination and taking act of rupture

On the one hand, the employment contract is broken immediately when the contract of employment is terminated. Taking action is very risky and dangerous for the employee; it requires that he has already found a job because the employee who takes note will not receive unemployment benefits.

On the other hand, the employee who terminates his employment contract will continue to work while awaiting the judge's decision. On the other hand, the employee who initiates an action in judicial termination, must wait for the decision of the judge to know if the contract of employment will be broken or not.

In both cases (taking action or termination), if it is justified that is to say in case of sufficiently serious fault of the employer (faute grave), the employee will receive severance pay and damages for unfair dismissal.

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat and Member of the Paris Bar Council (Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 23/08/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 mois 3 semaines

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille) a publié 4 articles sur la réforme de l’assurance chômage suite aux décrets du 26 juillet 2019.

La réforme entrera en vigueur au 1er novembre 2019.

Cliquez sur le lien internet ci-dessous pour lire (ou relire) les articles.

1) Réforme de l’assurance chômage : les nouvelles règles après le décret n° 2019-797 du 26 juillet 2019 (I).

 

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/reforme-assurance-chomage-les-nouvelles-regles-apres-decret-2019-797-juillet,32161.html#IUcr5kRtqIwWSHr1.99

2) Décret n° 2019-797 du 26 juillet 2019 : les mesures favorisant le retour à l’emploi et la sécurisation des parcours professionnels (II).
https://www.village-justice.com/articles/decret-2019-797-juillet-2019-relatif-regime-assurance-chomage-les-mesures,32170.html#X4xl2cpDJYIw1eXI.99

3) Décret n° 2019-797 du 26 juillet 2019 relatif au régime d’assurance chômage : les contributions générales (III).

 https://www.village-justice.com/articles/decret-2019-797-juillet-2019-relatif-regime-assurance-chomage-les-contributions,32187.html#XvsJMp3lk2lfUElZ.99

4) Chômage des salariés démissionnaires et travailleurs indépendants : les nouvelles règles après les décrets du 26 juillet 2019 (IV).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/decrets-2019-796-no2019-797-juillet-2019-indemnisation-des-salaries,32203.html#uD7kucPmYgbiLJX4.99

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 23/08/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 mois 3 semaines

During this training on the theme of Equality Women / Men: how to put it in place in the company? intervened: Maître Frédéric CHHUM, Maître Marilou OLLIVIER, Marion SIMONE (Student Lawyer), Emmanuel LUGUET (labor inspector) and Slimane LAOUFI (Chef de Pole, Defender of Rights (défenseur des droits)).

***

PowerPoint can be downloaded from the pdf below.

 

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat et member of the Paris Bar Council (conseil de l’ordre)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 23/08/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 mois 3 semaines

Le Cabinet Frédéric CHHUM AVOCATS a organisé le 3 juillet 2019 au Campus 2019 des avocats du barreau de Paris une formation sur le thème Egalité Femmes / Hommes : comment la mettre en place dans l’entreprise ?

Lors de cette formation, sont intervenus, Maître Frédéric CHHUM, Maître Marilou OLLIVIER, Marion SIMONE (élève Avocat), Emmanuel LUGUET (inspecteur du travail) et Slimane LAOUFI (Chef de Pole, Défenseur des droits).

***

Après les entreprises de plus de 1.000 salariés, ce sont désormais les entreprises dont l’effectif est compris entre 251 et 1.000 salariés qui doivent publier leur index sur l’égalité femmes/hommes au plus tard le 1er septembre 2019 (art. 4 décret n° 2019-15 du 8 janvier 2019).

***

Le PowerPoint de la formation est téléchargeable dans le pdf ci-dessous.

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 22/08/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 mois 3 semaines

In a decision of May 29, 2019 (No. 18-16183), the Court of Cassation ruled that an heart attack occurring on arrival in the company should be considered as an accident at work, despite the presence of prior symptoms when the journey from home to work.

1) Background.

According to Article L411-1 of the Social Security Code, an accident at work is an accident "caused by the fact or on the occasion of work".

This implies that the accident occurred while the employee was under the authority of the employer.

Thus, once the accident occurred at the time and place of work, the employee benefits from a presumption of liability for the accident at work.

In this case, the difficulty was that the symptoms of discomfort had arisen prior to the entry of the employee into the company. There was therefore the question of the application of the presumption of imputability.

2) Facts and procedure.

In the present case, an employee had died of a heart attack while he had just arrived at his place of work.

The employer however disputed the assumption of responsibility of the accident under the professional legislation.

Disappointed by the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, he appealed on points of law.

In support of his appeal, the appellant argued that the presumption of liability for the accident at work was not applicable to the case at hand for two reasons:

• the injury did not occur suddenly at the time and place of work, the first symptoms being felt before the arrival of the employee in the company;

• the employee was not under his authority at the time of the accident, since he had gone directly to the break room and had not started his work.

It was necessary to show that the discomfort felt by the employee was not an accident at work but rather a commuting accident, a situation more favorable for the employer.

3) Solution of the Court of Cassation.

The High Court dismisses the arguments raised by the applicant and has concluded that it is possible to rely on the presumption of imputability of the accident at work.

The Court of Cassation has indeed held that the accident had occurred at the time and place of work.

The employee "took his position even though he did not go immediately to the store" and was therefore under the authority of the employer at the time of the accident.

The meeting of these two elements (occurrence of the accident at the time and place of work, under the authority of the employer) authorizes the Court of Cassation to retain the professional nature of the accident.

She thus deduced that "the existence of symptoms prior to discomfort during the journey between home and the workplace is not likely to characterize a commuting accident".

To read the Article, please click on the link below

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/infarctus-survenu-arrivee-dans-entreprise-malgre-existence-symptomes-prealables,32127.html#7xqDdMlDdJoZQrom.99

c. cass. May 29, 2019, No. 18-16183

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038629485

 

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat and Member of the Paris Bar Council (Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 22/08/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 mois 3 semaines

 

1) Faits et procédure.

En l’espèce, un salarié était décédé d’un infarctus alors qu’il venait d’arriver sur son lieu de travail.

L’employeur contestait cependant la prise en charge de l’accident au titre de la législation professionnelle.

Débouté de sa demande par la Cour d’appel de Bordeaux, il s’est pourvu en cassation.

À l’appui de son pourvoi, le requérant soutenait que la présomption d’imputabilité de l’accident au travail ne trouvait pas à s’appliquer au cas de l’espèce, et ce pour deux raisons :

la lésion n’était pas survenue soudainement au temps et au lieu de travail, les premiers symptômes s’étant fait ressentir préalablement à l’arrivée du salarié dans l’entreprise ; le salarié n’était pas sous son autorité au moment de l’accident, puisqu’il s’était directement rendu en salle de pause et n’avait pas débuté son travail.

Il s’agissait de démontrer que le malaise subi par le salarié ne relevait pas d’un accident du travail mais plutôt d’un accident de trajet, une situation plus favorable pour l’employeur.

2) Solution de la Cour de cassation.

La Haute juridiction écarte les arguments soulevés par le requérant et a conclu à la possibilité de se prévaloir de la présomption d’imputabilité de l’accident au travail.

La Cour de cassation a en effet retenu que l’accident s’était bien produit au temps et au lieu de travail.

Le salarié avait « pris son poste même s’il ne s’était pas rendu immédiatement dans le magasin », et se trouvait par conséquent sous l’autorité de l’employeur au moment de l’accident.

La réunion de ces deux éléments (survenance de l’accident au temps et au lieu de travail, sous l’autorité de l’employeur) autorise la Cour de cassation à retenir le caractère professionnel de l’accident.

Elle en a ainsi déduit que « l’existence de symptômes préalables au malaise, pendant le trajet entre le domicile et le lieu de travail n’est pas de nature à caractériser un accident de trajet ».

Pour lire l’intégralité de la brève, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/infarctus-survenu-arrivee-dans-entreprise-malgre-existence-symptomes-prealables,32127.html#7xqDdMlDdJoZQrom.99

Source

c. cass. 29 mai 2019, n°18-16183

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038629485

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat and Member of the Council of the Bar Association of Paris (member du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 22/08/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 mois 3 semaines

The General Director of Labor (DGT) has communicated its instructions on the implementation of the gender equality index (index égalité femmes / hommes), in an instruction sent on 15 July 2019 to the labor inspection services.

As a reminder, the index set up by the law "Avenir professionnel" of September 5, 2018 makes it possible to evaluate the differences in remuneration within each company, with a view to reducing gender inequalities.

The purpose of the unpublished instruction is to assist companies in the implementation of the index and to guide inspection procedures.

According to the instruction, the controls will target, first and foremost, companies that have not published their index or that have not sent it to the administration, and then companies that score less than 75 points.

Companies with 1,000 employees or more should be considered first, since they have an obligation to publish their index since March 1, 2019.

Then follow smaller companies, which have a longer period to publish their index (September 1, 2019 for companies employing between 250 and 1,000 employees, March 1, 2020 for companies employing between 50 and 250 employees) .

The goal given to labor inspectors is to examine 7,000 companies in 2019, and all enterprises with at least 50 employees by 2022.

Regarding the penalties incurred, companies that have not published the index or whose score is less than 75 points risk a financial penalty, calculated on the basis of the activity income of the following whole month (R. 2242-7 C.trav).

An employer who fails to take corrective measures or who is taking improperly correct corrective measures is liable to the same penalty.

The instruction specifies that persisting not to publish the exact note will be worth the absence of publication of the index.

Lastly, it adds that the failure of the employer to transmit data relating to his index is "capable of constituting an obstacle to the performance of the duties of a screening officer who is punished by imprisonment for one year and a fine of € 37,500 ".

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/index-egalite-femmes-hommes-dgt-donne-des-consignes-controle-aux-inspecteurs,32212.html

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocat and member of the Council of the Paris Bar

Nina BOUILLON

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

www.chhum-avocats.fr

Twitter: @fchhum