frederic.chhum

Par frederic.chhum le 30/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 semaine 2 jours

La Cour de cassation balaye l’argument tenant à la procédure ; pour elle, le moyen du pourvoi est « nouveau », « mélangé de fait et de droit » et donc, « irrecevable ».

En ce qui concerne la justification du licenciement, les juges de la Haute Cour ont retenu que, de l’absence d’intervention du salarié, pendant le stage, « pour préserver l’intégrité physique et psychique de ses collaborateurs », il en résulte la « méconnaissance de ses obligations résultant des dispositions de l’article L. 4122-1 du code du travail ». Ainsi, la faute grave est caractérisée.

Cet arrêt donne une nouvelle illustration de l’obligation de sécurité dont chaque salarié est débiteur à l’égard de ses collègues.

Directement fondé sur l’article L. 4122-1 du Code du travail [2], l’attendu donne l’occasion de se rappeler la teneur de cette obligation : « Conformément aux instructions qui lui sont données par l’employeur, dans les conditions prévues au règlement intérieur pour les entreprises tenues d’en élaborer un, il incombe à chaque travailleur de prendre soin, en fonction de sa formation et selon ses possibilités, de sa santé et de sa sécurité ainsi que de celles des autres personnes concernées par ses actes ou ses omissions au travail ».

En étendant le champ d’application de cette obligation hors du cadre normal de l’exécution du travail, la position de la chambre sociale se fait le reflet des pratiques en vogue dans les entreprises comme à l’extérieur.

En effet, à l’heure des campagnes de prévention contre les bizutages extrêmes et autres week-ends d’intégration qui tournent mal, même le monde professionnel et ses leaders sont invités à la vigilance.

Enfin, le lien de subordination qui lie les organisateurs à la Direction, eût-elle elle-même validé le choix du prestataire, ne les exonère en rien de leurs obligations à l’égard des autres salariés. Seuls représentants de la hiérarchie lors du team-building, le salarié manag

 

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/team-building-manageur-qui-contraint-ses-subordonnes-marcher-sur-verre-pile,33069.html#sGPaZd1jl0d5SK3m.99

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

http://twitter.com/#!/fchhum

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 27/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 semaine 4 jours

1) Le droit du salarié au respect de sa vie privée.

L’article 9 du Code Civil dispose que « Chacun a droit au respect de sa vie privée ».

L’employeur au courant d’une relation amoureuse entre deux de ses salariés ne doit donc pas s’immiscer dans leur vie privée, même si cette vie privée a lieu sur le lieu de travail.

De même, en vertu d’un principe général de non-discrimination, l’employeur ne peut licencier ou sanctionner ces salariés.

En effet, selon l’article L.1132-1 du Code du travail, « aucune personne ne peut être écartée d’une procédure de recrutement ou de nomination ou de l’accès à un stage ou à une période de formation en entreprise, aucun salarié ne peut être sanctionné, licencié ou faire l’objet d’une mesure discriminatoire, directe ou indirecte (…) en raison de ses mœurs ou de son orientation sexuelle (..) ou de sa situation de famille (…) ».

Si la prise en compte des sentiments amoureux entre collègues n’y est pas expressément mentionnée, cet article protège indirectement la vie sentimentale du salarié.

Ainsi, le salarié qui entretient une relation avec un collègue, ou un supérieur hiérarchique ne peut être licencié pour ce seul motif (Cass. Soc. 21 décembre 2006 n°05-41140).

En l’occurrence, une caissière avait été licenciée en raison de sa liaison avec un collègue.

Les juges, affirmant que cette relation amoureuse n’avait pas créé de trouble caractérisé dans l’entreprise, considèrent que le licenciement est sans cause réelle et sérieuse.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/amour-travail-est-risque-pour-les-salaries,33022.html#fk4EUOUBJMrBjBsF.99

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

http://twitter.com/#!/fchhum

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 25/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 semaine 6 jours

Even though 14% of couples are working (survey Ipsos 2018), it can be complicated to mix love and work.

In the United States, the rules of a company may prohibit employees from having a relationship with one of their colleagues, on pain of being dismissed.

Mr. Steve Easterbrook, CEO, was released in November 2019 by the Board of Directors of MC DONALDS. just like the CEO of Intel in 2018.

In France, relationships at work are (thankfully) not regulated.

Yet, love in the workplace can be synonymous with encroaching privacy on professional life.

In the same way, it happens that within the company the border between seduction and sexual harassment is quickly crossed.

Conflicts, tensions or disorganization of the company ... how to reconcile love and work?

If in principle employees are free to maintain romantic relationships, the proper functioning of the company should not be disturbed.

1) Principle: freedom at work (liberté au travail)

1.1) The employee's right to respect for its private life (vie privé)

Article 9 of the Civil Code states that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private life".

The employer aware of a relationship between two of his employees should not interfere in their privacy, even if this privacy takes place in the workplace.

Similarly, by virtue of a general principle of non-discrimination, the employer can not dismiss or penalize these employees.

In fact, according to Article L.1132-1 of the Labor Code, "no person may be excluded from a recruitment or appointment procedure or from access to an internship or a training period in a company, no employee may be sanctioned, dismissed or discriminated against, directly or indirectly (...) by reason of his or her sexual habits or orientation (...) or of his family status (...) ".

If the consideration of love feelings between colleagues is not explicitly mentioned, this article indirectly protects the sentimental life of the employee.

Thus, the employee who has a relationship with a colleague, or a supervisor can not be dismissed for this reason alone (Cass Soc 21 December 2006, n° 05-41140).

In this case, a cashier had been dismissed because of her relationship with a colleague.

The judges, claiming that this relationship had not created a disorder characterized in the company, consider that the dismissal is without cause real and serious.

1.2) The impossibility for the employer to prohibit upstream the romantic relationships between employees

Similarly, the employer can not prohibit upstream romantic relationships between employees.

On the one hand, it is impossible to stipulate in the contract of employment a clause that would prohibit such relations in the workplace; even by invoking possible future conflicts.

Such a clause constituting discrimination on family status prohibited by Article L.1132-1 of French Labor Code.

Thus, in a judgment dated February 7, 1968 (Cass Soc., n° 65-40622), the Court of Cassation considered that the clauses of celibacy, forbidding the marriage or the remarriage of the employees, infringed the freedom of the employee.

On the other hand, the internal rules of the company can not prevent spouses from being both employees within the company.

Indeed, the rules of procedure must not place excessive restrictions on people's rights.

According to Article L.1121-1 of French Labor Code "No one may bring to the rights of individuals and to individual and collective freedoms any restrictions that are not justified by the nature of the task to be performed and proportionate to the aim pursued".

Thus, the clause of the internal regulations stating that "spouses can not be employed simultaneously in the company" is not valid (Cass Soc 10 June 1982 n ° 80-40929 published in the bulletin).

2) Restrictions

2.1) Duty of neutrality of the employee

If it is incumbent on the employer to be indifferent to the employee's romantic relationships, the latter must respect the demarcation between private and professional life.

That is to say that employees cannot manifest their feelings in the workplace too explicitly.

Similarly, they are prohibited from abusing the professional means at their disposal for any purpose other than professional.

Promotions and benefits granted within the company must depend on professional skills, an employee cannot favor its spouse to the detriment of others. When the employer validates such a promotion, he must be able to show that the choices made are based on considerations that are unrelated to any discrimination (L.1134-1).

If drifts are detected in the workplace, the employer may, after having reframed the employee, send him a warning or any other proportionate and justified disciplinary sanction.

Lastly, the case law allows the validity of the non-disciplinary dismissal for facts, relating to the personal life of the employee, which has caused an objective disorder characterized in the company.

This disorder is assessed in terms of the employee's functions and the company's specific aims (Cass Soc, January 22, 1992 n° 90-42517).

In this case, a RENAULT employee had been fired for buying a Peugeot 405.

The Court of Cassation recalls the freedom of "goods and services" and considers that the dismissal is without cause because the employer did not show "any objective trouble to the company".

In addition, the Court of Cassation (Cass Soc 9 July 2002 n ° 00-45068) considers that "the violence of an employee towards his concubine, also employee of the company, which had given rise to his arrest, has caused a marked objective disturbance, even if it was a matter of personal life; the employer could fear new incidents and the reputation of the company and the image of the employees could be affected; that the dismissal was therefore admissible ".

Thus, the impact of the relationship on the operation of the company and the organization of work must be measured.

2.2) Prohibition of sexual harassment and sexist behavior

Although employees are free to have romantic relationships, these relationships must be made.

Indeed, the dividing line between seduction and harassment is fine.

Judges consider, for example, that attempting to obtain sexual favors from an employee by multiplying calls and gifts, by going to her home and intruding into her private life, in order to convince her and even to compel her to yield to her advances constitutes sexual harassment (Cass Soc 3 Mar. 2009, n° 07-44082).

In the judgment of September 25, 2019 (n° 17-31171), the Court of Cassation considers that the "game of reciprocal seduction" between the superior and the employee who pleaded to be harassed sexually, allowed to dismiss this qualification of harassment sexual.

In the event of harassment, it is the employer's responsibility to take all necessary measures to protect employees (L. 4121-1 of the Labor Code).

See also our 3 articles:

. Sexual harassment and sexist behavior at work: what does the DGT recommend? https://www.village-justice.com/articles/harcelement-sexuel-agissement-sexistes-travail-que-preconise-dgt,31229.html

. Sexual harassment and sexist behavior at work: this changes with the laws of August 3 and September 5, 2018

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/harcelement-sexual-agencies-sex... law-future 29863.html # MSQpZhpXZVurKows.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/harcelement-sexuel-agissements-sexistes-qui-change-avec-loi-avenir,29863.html#MSQpZhpXZVurKows.99

. Harassment by pornographic SMS at work: the ambiguity of the subordinate disqualifies sexual harassment

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/harcelement-par-sms-porno-travail-ambiguite-subordonnee-disqualifie-harcelement,32807.html#6btDOfTBYJtrXGB5.99

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

http://twitter.com/#!/fchhum

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 24/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 semaines 13 heures
1) La restitution de la rémunération variable en cas de méconnaissance des règles relatives à la prise de risque.

L’article L. 511-84 [1] du précédent Code dispose désormais que « le montant total de la rémunération variable peut, en tout ou partie, être réduit ou donner lieu à restitution » si « la personne concernée a méconnu les règles édictées par l’établissement en matière de prise de risque ».

D’une part, cette possibilité est expressément prescrite par l’article comme constituant une dérogation au principe d’interdiction des sanctions pécuniaires prévu par l’article L. 1331-2 du Code du travail.

D’autre part, le recours à cette sanction peut être prise à l’encontre du salarié « notamment en raison de sa responsabilité dans des agissements ayant entraîné des pertes significatives pour l’établissement ou en cas de manquement aux obligations d’honorabilité et de compétence ». Si l’adverbe « notamment » laisse présager que la liste des cas d’ouverture n’est pas limitative, la possibilité d’appliquer une telle mesure semble toutefois encadrée.

En outre, il ressort de cette loi que l’application de ce dispositif de restitution entraîne la mise en œuvre d’un autre mécanisme.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/traders-que-loi-pacte-change-concernant-les-bonus-recuperables,32952.html#UPjuBvjoo60ef2oI.99

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

Claire Chardès

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

http://twitter.com/#!/fchhum

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 24/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 semaines 13 heures

Among the changes introduced by the so-called "Pact" Law No. 219-486 of 22 March 2019 on the growth and transformation of companies are two series of measures concerning traders receiving variable remuneration.

Indeed, this is the subject of several provisions contained in the Monetary and Financial Code, which have been amended by Article 77 of the aforementioned law.

1) Restitution of variable remuneration in case of ignorance of the rules relating to risk taking

Article L. 511-84 (1) of the previous Code now provides that "the total amount of the variable remuneration may, in whole or in part, be reduced or give rise to restitution" if "the person concerned has breached the rules enacted by the institution in terms of risk taking ".

On the one hand, this possibility is expressly prescribed by the article as constituting a derogation from the principle of prohibition of pecuniary sanctions provided for by Article L. 1331-2 of the Labor Code.

On the other hand, the use of this sanction may be taken against the employee "in particular because of his responsibility in actions resulting in significant losses for the establishment or in case of breach of the obligations of good repute and skill ". If the adverb "in particular" suggests that the list of opening cases is not limiting, the possibility of applying such a measure seems however framed.

In addition, it is clear from this law that the application of this restitution system entails the implementation of another mechanism.

2) The exclusion of sums refunded when determining the amount of certain severance payments of the employment contract

The following article, Article L. 511-84-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code (2), actually supplements the previous scheme.

It is provided that the amounts which have been the subject of a refund are also excluded from the calculation basis determining the amount of several indemnities placed at the expense of the employer.

This eviction is provided for the calculation of the following indemnities:

- compensation awarded following a dismissal in breach of the provisions relating to the reinstatement of the employee in "his or her employment or similar job" following a sick leave or an occupational disease (3);

- Compensation due in case of dismissal for incapacity disregarding "provisions relating to the reclassification of the employee declared unfit" (3);

- Legal compensation for dismissal following the termination of an employment contract of indefinite duration provided for in Article L. 1234-9 (4);

- Severance pay for no real and serious cause and whose amount is included in the scale as provided for in Article L. 1235-3 (5);

- indemnity for dismissal (6);

- Compensatory allowance for the absence of reinstatement in the workforce as a result of dismissal for economic reasons, due to a lack of the employment protection plan (7);
- Allowance granted by the judge in the event of the employee's absence from being reinstated in the company to which he could normally aspire after the cancellation of the PES validation decision (8).

Employees affected by the exclusion of bonuses are the "risk takers" as defined by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 604/2014 of 4 March 2014 (9).

In other words, these different texts set a certain number of "qualitative and quantitative" criteria.

These are then used to establish "categories of staff whose professional activities have a significant impact on an institution's risk profile".

For example, when the qualitative criteria refer more to the functions performed by the employee (managerial, executive, or supervisory function), the quantitative criteria, they, rather relate to the remuneration he receives (10) .

Lastly, the variable remuneration received by these employees is subject to double punitive treatment when it is established that a certain number of rules have been infringed.

In the parliamentary debates that preceded the adoption of the Pact Act, this device was interpreted as a reaction to the Kerviel case.

An amendment was even proposed by some senators, who criticized this sanction for targeting individual traders even though they operate in the system organized by the banks that employ them (11).

These provisions, however, were adopted and came into force in May.

__________________

 

(1) L. 511-84, Monetary and Financial Code

(2) L. 511-84-1, Monetary and Financial Code

(3) L. 1226-15, Labor Code

(4) L. 1234-9, Labor Code

(5) L. 1235-3, Labor Code

(6) L. 1235-3-1, Labor Code

(7) L. 1235-11, Labor Code

(8) L. 1235-16, Labor Code

(9) and (10) COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 604/2014 of 4 March 2014 supplementing Directive 2013/36 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council

(11) Meeting of January 31, 2019 (full minutes of proceedings), available on the official website of the Senate

 

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

Claire Chardès

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

http://twitter.com/#!/fchhum

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 24/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 semaines 13 heures

In 2018, CHHUM AVOCATS law office (Paris, Nantes and Lille) obtained the following case law before the industrial tribunal (conseil de prud’hommes) or the court of appeal (court d’appel.

1) Requalification of CDDU on CDI (intermittent entertainment, journalists, temporary workers, wage-earning employees)

1.1) Requalification of CDDU on permanent contract and dismissal without cause

The Court of Appeal of Paris requalifie the 32 years of CDDU in CDI of a director of religious emissions of FRANCE TELEVISIONS full time and the rupture of the collaboration is considered without cause; the latter obtains 213,000 euros gross (Court of Appeal of Paris (pole 6 - room 6), November 28, 2018, judgment not final).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/intermittents-realisateur-cddu-france-televisions-requalifie-cdi-obtient-213,30151.html

1.2) Requalification of CDDU on permanent contract and dismissal without cause

In three ”départage” decisions, the Labor Boulogne-Billancourt’Conseil de prud’hommes has requalified the 5 years of CDDU of 3 TF1 TV editors on CDI and the termination of their collaboration is considered without cause.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/intermittents-chefs-monteurs-cddu-tf1-requalifies-cdi-avec-emploi-realisateur,29610.html

1.3) Requalification of CDDU on permanent contract and dismissal without cause

The Court of Appeal reclassifies the 20 years of CDDU on CDI of a director of full-time FRANCE TELEVISIONS trailers and the break of the collaboration is considered without cause, the latter obtains 127,000 euros gross (Paris Court of Appeal (pole 6 - chamber 4) September 12th, 2018, RG 16/12201).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/droit-des-intermittents-realisateur-france-televisions-cddu-depuis-ans-obtient,29436.html#PGdOHGCIRbt6HHwU.99

1.4) Requalification of CDDU on permanent contract and dismissal without cause:

The Court of Appeal reclassified the 500 CDDUs (17 years) as providing intermittent production assistance on a permanent contract and the breakdown of the collaboration was considered without cause. She also obtains a reminder of overtime (Paris Court of Appeal, June 27, 2018).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/droit-des-intermittents-requalification-des-500-cddu-une-assistante-production,29088.html#zJ1PDxfPDL7DLBFg.99

2) Discriminatory dismissal (licenciement discriminatoire)

2.1) Discriminatory dismissal due to the state of health of an employee of an advertising agency:

The Conseil de prud'hommes considered that Ms. X, legal representative, was discriminated against because of her state of health and that the company breached its obligation to protect the physical and mental health of the employee.

The Conseil de prud’hommes condemns the PUBLICIS group to the payment of the sum of 162,000 euros for dismissal null, damages and interests for discrimination related to the state of health (état de santé), damages and interests for violation of the obligation security result (Paris Conseil de prud'hommes, July 27th , 2018).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/licenciement-discriminatoire-une-juriste-publicis-obtient-162-000-euros-aux,29995.html#dD7Wd3DmDbHD6CsM.99-

2.2) Discriminatory dismissal due to the state of health (état de santé):

The Labor Conseil de prud’hommes of Nanterre considered that Mrs X, management control, was discriminated against because of her state of health (état de santé). For this purpose, the Board condemns the Company SEDIVER to the payment of the sum of 26,200 euros as damages and interest for dismissal null following a discriminatory harassment (Labor conseil de prud’hommes of Nanterre, May 4th, 2018).

https://blogavocat.fr/space/frederic.chhum/content/licenciement-en-raison-de-l%E2%80%99%C3%A9tat-de-sant%C3%A9-une-contr%C3%B4leuse-de-gestion-de-sediver-obtient-26.200-euros-aux-prud%E2%80%99hommes-%C3%A0-titre-de-dommages-et-int%C3%A9r%C3%AAts-pour-licenciement-nul-suite-%C3%A0-un-harc%C3%A8lement-discriminatoire-cph-nanterre-4

3) Saisie attribution : validation of a “saisie attribution” of an intermittent spectacle to execute a industrial judgment (jugement du conseil de prud’hommes)

The Court of Appeal of Paris validated the seizure-attribution of Mr. X to execute an industrial judgment on the ground that it was regularly notified by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt to the company and the minutes of the seizure of April 19, 2017.

The Court of Appeal condemns the company BO Travail ! to the full costs of appeal and pay Mr. X the sum of 4,000 euros on the basis of Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Paris Court of Appeal, September 20, 2018).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/saisie-attribution-cour-appel-paris-valide-une-saisie-realisee-par-intermittent,29554.html#lEdLwYFdT2SjVOAC.99-

4) Payroll: obtaining the payment of overtime on appeal from the labor courts following the signing of a conventional break

The Paris Court of Appeal recalls the jurisdiction of the Labor Court in respect of wage-earning and thus gives the employee of ABC PORTAGE a reminder of overtime of 5,977.39 euros gross as reminders of overtime and 597.73 euros as related paid leave (Paris Court of Appeal, May 24th, 2018, RG 17/13902, final).

https://blogavocat.fr/space/frederic.chhum/contents/201809

5) Discrimination (lack of career development) and refusal of promotion (referred to Article 145 of the CPC)

The Conseil de prud'hommes orders FRANCE TELEVISIONS to provide a journalist with a deputy editor's report with documents on career development and pay slips for the last 3 years and December of each year since hired 19 of his salaried colleagues (Labor Court of Paris, départage April 6th, 2018).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/discrimination-les-prud-hommes-ordonnent-france-televisions-communiquer,29113.html#TkCeZe5sURkCA1eD.99

6) Inaptitude and appointment of a medical expert in summary proceedings

The Paris Court of Appeals held that the taking of an act of rupture of 16 August 2017 of his employment contract by Mr. X, employee of the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, does not affect the request for designation (by the CDC) of a medical expert in summary filed on July 20, 2017 (Paris Court of Appeal, Pole 6 - Chamber 2, June 21st, 2018).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/inaptitude-designation-medecin-expert-refere-prise-act-salarie-rend-it-28884.html#RMcwDGliHQBbuVzI.99

7) Requalification of a dismissal for real and serious cause of dismissal without real and serious cause of a sommelier

The Labor Court of Paris considers that the dismissal of Mr. X is based on no real and serious cause. As a result, the Board condemns LAVINIA to pay the sum of 8,000 to Mr. X as termination indemnity without real and serious cause (Paris Conseil de Prud'hommes, April 6th, 2017)

https://blogavocat.fr/space/frederic.chhum/content/prud%E2%80%99hommes-un-sommelier-de-lavinia-obtient-8.000-euros-aux-prud%E2%80%99hommes-pour-licenciement-sans-cause-r%C3%A9elle-et-s%C3%A9rieuse-cph-paris-06042017_

CHHUM AVOCATS defends in particular employees, executives, intermittent entertainment workers, journalists, executives, celebrities, influencers.

We also plead throughout France (Labor Court, Court of Appeal, Tribunal correctionnel, TGI).

1) Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS pleads before the Courts of Appeal (Paris, Versailles, etc.), before all the industrial tribunals of Ile de France (Paris, Melun, Meaux, Fontainebleau, Auxerre, Sens, Creteil, Bobigny, Evry) and throughout France (Lyon, Marseille, Lille, etc.).

CHHUM AVOCATS also pleads before the TASS, the Tribunal de Grande Instance and the Tribunal correctionnel.

2) Nantes

CHHUM AVOCATS Paris, lawyers in labor law and labor criminal law, has a secondary office in Nantes

The office is located at 41, Quai de la Fosse in Nantes (opposite the Courthouse).

3) Lille

CHHUM AVOCATS Paris, lawyers in labor law and labor criminal law, has a secondary office in Lille since 1 March 2019.

The office is located at 25, rue Gounod in Lille.

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

http://twitter.com/#!/fchhum

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 20/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 semaines 4 jours

Since the two opinions given by the Court of Cassation on 17 July 2019 (1), the first judgments of the Courts of Appeal ruling on the conformity of the provisions of Article L. 1235-3 of the Labor Code (2) with the international texts were eagerly awaited. After the Reims Court of Appeal on September 25 (3), the Court of Appeal of Paris was positioned on October 30 following (4).

1. From recall of facts to dismissal without real and serious cause

Mr. X. was hired as a Junior Analyst on December 31, 2003, on a permanent contract, with a resumption of seniority on March 1, 2001, when he began to practice in the employing company as an analyst. technical.

He was dismissed 16 years later, on the ground that he had demonstrated a "mistrust of [his] hierarchy" and would have demonstrated "hostility [behavior] considered unacceptable". He is also reproached for having "[refused] to learn Python language", which would have resulted in the assignment of another employee urgently on the task at hand.

The employee tries to make say and judge that the rupture of his contract of employment is analyzed in a dismissal without real and serious cause. He relies in particular on the prescription of the facts alleged against him, which date in large part "from April to October 2017". The only alleged wrongful act - the refusal to train "in the Python language" - is considered to be "not characterized or proven" by the Paris Court of Appeal.

The judges of the merits therefore considered that "the dismissal of Mr X must be declared devoid of real and serious cause".

Thus the fight over the compliance of the "Macron Scale" scale provided for in Article L. 1235-3 of the Labor Code was opened again.

2. The decision of October 30th, 2019 (Pole 6, Chamber 8)

Although the employer tried to remove them from the dispute, the unions CGT, CGT-FO, Solidaires and CFDT intervened.

Indeed, regarding the conventionality of the scale, they considered that "the debate goes beyond the employer / employee relationship".

The unions taken as a whole and Mr X. have put forward several arguments to remove the scales.

The opportunity was therefore given to the Paris Court of Appeal to rule in an unprecedented manner in relation to the opinions given by the Court of Cassation on July 17 (op cit).

2.1. The conformity of the Macron scale (bareme Macron) with Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (5)

Considering that Article 6 of the said Convention, which guarantees "the right to a fair trial", does not have to apply to the material limitations of the right to compensation following dismissal without serious cause, the Court rejects this argument.

It reserves the same fate with the invocation of Article 13 preserving the right to an "effective remedy before a national authority" by considering that between the limits of the scale "it is up to the judge seized to the substance to decide".

2.2. The conformity of the Macron scale with Article 24 of the European Social Charter

Similarly, the plea based on compliance with the "provisions of Article 24 of the European Social Charter revised on 3 May 1996" (6) is unsuccessful according to the judges, for whom these provisions "do not have direct effect in law". in a dispute between private individual "and" can not usefully be invoked by the appellant and the intervening parties to see the provisions of Article L.1235-3 of the Labor Code ".

2.3. The conformity of the Macron scale (Bareme Macron) with Articles 20, 21 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The unions argued "that the scale established by Article L.1235-3 of the Labor Code, by not providing other criteria for differentiation that the seniority of the employee and the workforce of the company" treated "of employees in different situations in breach of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment 'as laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (7).

For their part, the judges of the Court of Appeal of Paris, in the judgment of October 30, 2019, found that "the provisions of Article L.1235-3 of the Labor Code leave between a minimum limit and a maximum limit expressed in months of gross salary ".

Thus, there remains "a discretionary power to the court of the merits, so that compensation meets the particular situation of the employee, by taking into account criteria other than seniority, such as age, family situation, the difficulty of finding a job "so that" the alleged inequality of treatment is not demonstrated ".

On this point, the Court of Cassation had not pronounced in its two opinions rendered in July 2019. The Court of Appeal completely rejects this plea.

2.4. The conformity of the Macron Schedule with Articles 4, 9 and 10 of ILO Convention No. 158 (8)

To begin with, the judges of the merits consider that "these articles of Convention No. 158 on the dismissal of the International Labor Organization are of direct application in domestic law".

The Court of Appeal states that "the introduction of a scale is not in itself contrary to the texts referred to by the appellant and the voluntary unions".

Indeed, the scale would "guarantee to the employee" adequate compensation or appropriate compensation "" since "the French judge within the framework of the minimum and maximum amounts enacted on the basis of the seniority of the employee and the number of employees. the company, [keep] a margin of appreciation "(CA Paris, October 30, 2019).

And to conclude that "it is appropriate to allocate to Mr X the sum of 67 900 euros corresponding to the equivalent of 13 months of gross wages, this amount offering adequate compensation for the damage resulting from the unfounded nature of the dismissal".

3. For the Paris Court of Appeal: from flexibility to firmness

The breach of non-compliance with international texts was quietly opened by the Court of Appeal of Paris, Pole 6, Chamber 3, in a first judgment dated 18 September 2019 (9).

Indeed, it stated that in accordance with the requirements of Article 10 of ILO Convention No. 158 and Article 24 of the European Charter, "compensation up to the two months provided for in the scale of constitutes an adequate and appropriate compensation for the particular situation ".

Consequently, there was "no need to derogate from the regulatory scale and to consider the scale contrary to the above-mentioned conventions".

The wording could have hit the nail on the head because the answer was expressly circumscribed "to the situation of the species", which did not require a "derogation from the regulatory scale".

On reading such a formulation, the possibility was open to the judge to reject the scale whenever he considered it necessary.

Article L. 1235-3 would have lost its binding nature.

For its part, the Court of Appeal of Reims, by the judgment rendered on September 25, 2019, appeared to rush indirectly into the same breach. For its part, it decided that "the control of conventionality does not dispense, in the presence of a device deemed conventional, to assess whether it does not disproportionately affect the rights of the employee concerned".

Thus, it stated that it was possible to conduct a "search for proportionality, this time heard" in concreto "and not" in abstracto ", which should have been" requested by the employee ".

However, the Court of Appeal of Paris (Pole 6, Chamber 8) has departed well from such convolutions to make a judgment that leaves no room for doubt.

A question continues to animate the commentators: will the dissensions between the province and the capital flourish even in the Courts of Appeal so that the scale is spread elsewhere in France?

 

Opinion of the Court of Cassation rendered on July 17, 2019, n ° 15012 and 15013:

https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/avis_15/avis_classes_date_239/2019_9218/17_juillet_2019_1970010_9442/15012_17_43209.html et https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/avis_15/avis_classes_date_239/2019_9218/17_juillet_2019_1970011_9443/15013_17_43210.html

L. 1235-3, Labor Code: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000036762052&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20180401 Court of Appeal of Reims, September 25, 2019: https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/sites/dalloz-actualite.fr/files/resources/2019/09/doc250919-25092019123807.pdf Court of Appeal of Paris, October 30, 2019: https://revuefiduciaire.grouperf.com/plussurlenet/complements/CA_Paris_30_10_19_Bareme_Macron.pdf European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, art. 6 and 13: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf Article 24 of the European Social Charter guarantees the "right to protection in the event of dismissal": https://www.cncdh.fr/sites/default/files/charte_sociale_europeenne_revisee_0.pdf  (7) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 20, 21 and 3: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

(8) ILO Convention No. 158, art. 10: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C158

(9) Court of Appeal of Paris, September 18, 2019:

 

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et 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 20/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 2 semaines 4 jours

La brèche de la non-conformité aux textes internationaux avait discrètement été ouverte par la Cour d’appel de Paris, Pôle 6, Chambre 3, dans un premier arrêt en date du 18 septembre 2019 .

En effet, il y était énoncé que conformément aux exigences posé par l’article 10 de la Convention n° 158 de l’OIT et par l’article 24 de la Charte européenne, « la réparation à hauteur des deux mois prévus par le barème constitue une réparation du préjudice adéquate et appropriée à la situation d’espèce ».

Par conséquence, il n’y avait « pas lieu de déroger au barème réglementaire et de considérer le dit barème contraire aux conventions précitées ».

La formulation avait pu faire mouche puisque la réponse apportée était expressément circonscrite « à la situation d’espèce », qui ne nécessitait pas de « déroger au barème » réglementaire.

A la lecture d’une telle formulation, était ouverte la possibilité pour le juge d’écarter le barème dès lors qu’il le jugeait nécessaire.

L’article L. 1235-3 aurait perdu de son caractère contraignant.

Pour sa part, la Cour d’appel de Reims, par l’arrêt rendu le 25 septembre 2019, faisait mine de s’engouffrer indirectement dans la même brèche.

Elle a décidé que « le contrôle de conventionnalité ne dispense pas, en présence d’un dispositif jugé conventionnel, d’apprécier s’il ne porte pas une atteinte disproportionnée aux droits du salarié concerné ».

Ainsi, elle disposait qu’il était possible de mener une « recherche de proportionnalité, entendue cette fois « in concreto » et non « in abstracto », qui aurait cependant dû être « demandée par le salarié ».

Il demeure cependant que la Cour d’appel de Paris (Pôle 6, Chambre 8) s’est bien écartée de telles circonvolutions pour rendre un arrêt qui ne laisse pas de place au doute.

Une question continue d’animer les commentateurs : les dissensions entre la province et la capitale prospèreront-elles jusque dans les Cours d’appel de sorte que le barème se trouve écarté ailleurs en France ? A suivre.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/bareme-macron-pour-licenciement-sans-cause-pour-paris-est-conforme-paris,33001.html#xI7tsTBQAJL1gJad.99

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et 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 11/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 3 semaines 6 jours

In its decision of October 17th 2019, the Labor Court of Paris (référés), ruling in summary proceedings, orders on the basis of Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure to the company to produce the register of entry and staff release (period 2008 to 2018) and payslips (period 2016 to 2018) of 16 of Ms. X's colleagues.

The parties may appeal the order.

1) Reminder of the facts

Ms. X was hired, as of June 15, 2008, as Accounting Manager in the general accounting department of RE: SOURCES FRANCE, for an average monthly salary of € 3,667 for a 35-hour weekly schedule.

Ms. X was placed under the responsibility of a supervisor, Mrs. Y, who was under the responsibility of Mr. Z.

As of November 2009, Ms. X was on sick leave for 4 months due to hospitalization due to the declaration of a serious and chronic autoimmune disease.

On her return, while Ms. X resumed her position in therapeutic part-time, in accordance with the recommendations of her doctor and the occupational physician, she discovered that her duties and her office had been entrusted to another employee.

No part-time work rider was regularized according to his therapeutic part-time.

In April 2013, she was classified in first category disability and continues her collaboration in "part-time disability" starting in June 2013.

Ms. X was notified of her dismissal for professional deficiencies on August 28, 2018.

Believing that she had been the victim of discrimination based on her state of health, manifested by a lack of evolution of her salary for several years, Ms. X appealed to the Labor Court of Paris in her summary hearing. April 25, 2019 of a request for documents by the employer.

2) Decision of Paris conseil de prud’hommes dated October 17, 2019 (départage référés)

The Parisian Conseil de prud'hommes sitting in summary proceedings, ruling by contradictory order and at first instance:

• Orders RE: SOURCES FRANCE to produce the following documents within one month of the notification of this decision and under an overall penalty of 50 euros per day of delay for four months:

- The register of entry and exit of the staff of the company RE: SOURCES FRANCE for the period 2008/2018;

- The pay slips for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 as well as the payslips for the month of December of each year since they hired the 16 employees referred to in the plaintiff's conclusions;

• Condemns the company RE: SOURCES FRANCE to pay Ms. X a sum of 800 euros on the basis of Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

• Recalls that this order is subject to provisional execution by operation of law.

2.1) In law

According to Article R. 1455-5 of the Labor Code, the preliminary ruling may, within the limits of the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals, order all measures which do not meet any serious challenge or which justify the existence of a dispute;

According to Article R. 1455-6 of the same Code, the preliminary ruling can always, even in the presence of a serious dispute, prescribe the necessary conservatory or reinstatement measures, either to prevent damage imminent, either to stop a clearly unlawful disorder;

It follows from the provisions of Article L. 1132-1 of the Labor Code that no employee may be the subject of a discriminatory measure, direct or indirect, particularly as regards remuneration, because of its origin, sex, morals, sexual orientation, age, marital status or pregnancy, genetic characteristics, membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of an ethnic group, nation or race, its political opinions, its trade union or mutualist activities.

Article L. 1142-1 of the French Labor Code provides that no one may refuse to hire a person, make a transfer, terminate or refuse to renew the employment contract of an employee in consideration of gender, the status of family or pregnancy on the basis of different selection criteria according to sex, family status or pregnancy.

Article L. 1144-1 of the French Labor Code provides that when a dispute arises concerning the application of the provisions of Articles L. 1142-1 and L. 1142-2, the candidate for a job or the employee presents elements in fact suggesting direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, family status or pregnancy. In the light of these elements, it is incumbent on the defendant to prove that its decision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if there is a legitimate reason for keeping or establishing before any trial the proof of facts which could be relied on in the solution of a dispute, the measures of inquiry lawfully may be ordered at the request of any interested party, on request or in summary proceedings.

It is a matter of principle that this procedure is not limited to the preservation of evidence and may also tend to their establishment.

2.2) In this particular case

The departing judge states that "In this case, the employee establishes the stagnation of her earnings as of her health difficulties and justifies having lodged claims with the employer as of 2011, also surprised by the absence of payment of the balance sheet premium she received prior to her sick leave.

In view of the elements of the discussions, it appears that the employee has a monthly increase of 40 euros in 2013, on the occasion of its passage to the package / days then 50 euros in June 2018, a monthly increase of 90 euros on eight years, as part of a general increase.

This situation is verified by the Accounting Director, Mrs Y, who indicates: "Every year, the supervisors evaluated the employees of their team and consulted each year with Mr. Z about increases in salaries and bonuses. From 2010 to 2016, I asked for an increase and bonus each year for Mrs. X, which I was very satisfied with. Mr. Z always put his name on the list (...) and deliberately blocked Ms. X's salary, I noticed that he was working on her, she is the only employee I saw in the team general accounting have no salary increase for many years ".

It therefore appears that the applicant has a legitimate reason for requesting the disclosure of documents in order to support any action on the basis of discrimination, since the anonymised documents produced by the employer do not allow a valid examination to be carried out. the wage situation ".

The presiding judge points out that "it should be recalled that respect for the private lives of employees can not in itself constitute an obstacle to the application of the provisions of Article 145 if the measure sought is based on a legitimate ground and is necessary to preserve the rights of the plaintiff ".

The Labor Court partially grants its request and order RE: SOURCES FRANCE to produce the following documents, within one month from the notification of this decision and under an overall penalty of 50 euros per day late for four months:

- The register of entry and exit of the staff of the company RE: SOURCES FRANCE for the period 2008/2018;

- Pay slips for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 as well as payslips for December each year since the hiring of the 16 employees referred to in the Plaintiff's submissions.

It is allocated to the plaintiff a sum of 800 euros on the basis of Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The company RE: SOURCES FRANCE will be rejected of its request in this respect.

In a similar case, in an decision of April 6th 2018, the Labor Court of Paris (référés départage) had ordered FRANCE TELEVISIONS to communicate the career assessment of 19 of its employees (see our article - Discrimination: FRANCE TELEVISIONS must communicate to a salaried journalist the career assessment of its 19 colleagues – https://www.village-justice.com/articles/discrimination-the-proud-men-order-france-televisions-communicate,29113.html )

Article in French : Discrimination et référé article 145 du CPC : une salariée obtient les bulletins de paie de ses 16 collègues

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/discrimination-refere-article-145-cpc-une-salariee-obtient-les-bulletins-paie,32853.html

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et 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 03/11/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 5 jours

Le présent article synthétise les principales dispositions sur la réglementation des trottinettes motorisée issues du décret du 23 octobre 2019.

On aime les trottinettes ou on les déteste ; en tout cas, elles entrent dans le Code de la route avec le décret n° 2019-1082 du 23 octobre 2019 (JO 25 octobre 2019).

Équipement obligatoire pour circuler en trottinette motorisée.

Tout conducteur de trottinette à moteur doit :

a) Être coiffé d’un casque conforme à la réglementation relative aux équipements de protection individuelle, qui doit être attaché ;

b) Porter, soit un gilet de haute visibilité conforme à la réglementation, soit un équipement rétro-réfléchissant dont les caractéristiques sont fixées par arrêté du ministre chargé de la sécurité routière ;

c) Porter sur lui un dispositif d’éclairage complémentaire non éblouissant et non clignotant dont les caractéristiques sont fixées par arrêté du ministre chargé de la sécurité routière ;

d) Circuler, de jour comme de nuit, avec les feux de position de son engin allumés.

La personne âgée d’au moins dix-huit ans qui accompagne un conducteur de trottinette motorisée âgé de moins de dix-huit ans doit s’assurer, lorsqu’elle exerce une autorité de droit ou de fait sur ce ou ces conducteurs, que chacun est coiffé d’un casque dans les conditions prévues au a) ci-dessus.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/decret-trottinettes-octobre-2019-les-regles-circulation-stationnement,32837.html#p8uxggd2ojd3H5I0.99

 

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

http://twitter.com/#!/fchhum

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