frederic.chhum

Par frederic.chhum le 27/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 1 jour

The decisions the Court of Cassation relating to the contractual breach abounded this year.

Various solutions relating to the procedure to be followed in this area have been made (1).

Other judgments were more relevant to the context in which the contractual breach was concluded (2).

1) Solutions relating to the procedure for contractual termination

In a rather rigorous interpretation, the Court of Cassation ruled, on July 3, 2019 (n ° 17-14232) (1), that "only the delivery to the employee of a copy of the agreement signed by the two parties allows him to request the approval of the agreement and to exercise its right of withdrawal with full knowledge of the facts ”.

Thus, the judges accentuated the requirements in terms of formalism surrounding the conclusion of the contractual breach in that it shows the need for the employer to spare the proof of the delivery to the employee of a signed copy of the CERFA form (formulaire cerfa).

The sanction is such that if this proof is not presented, the breach of agreement is void.

A similar penalty is incurred in the event that "the date of signing of the termination agreement, not mentioned on the agreement, was uncertain and it was not allowed to determine the starting point of the withdrawal period".

Such is the expectation of the Court of Cassation of March 27, 2019 (n° 17-23586) (2), which therefore considers that the termination of the employment contract is "without real and serious cause".

On the other hand, according to a judgment of June 5, 2019 (n ° 18-10901) (3), the nullity of the contractual breach cannot be declared solely because of “the assistance of the employer during the prior interview at the signing of the termination agreement ”. This assistance must have "created a constraint or pressure for the employee who comes to the interview alone".

The Court of Cassation therefore adds an additional condition to the provisions of the Labor Code which, however, provides, in its article L. 1237-12 (4), that “the employer has the right to be assisted when the employee does so. use itself ".

2) Solutions relating to the context of the rupture of the conventional rupture (rupture conventionnelle)

When a protected employee is subject to a contractual breach canceled by decision of the Minister of Labor, he must be reinstated in the company, on his post or an equivalent post.

On May 15th, 2019 (n ° 17-28547) (5), the judges of the High Court considered that "when the employer has not satisfied this obligation, without justifying an impossibility of reinstatement" then "the judicial termination pronounced wrongful of the employer for this reason produces the effects of a dismissal void ”.

Adopting a much more liberal position a few days earlier on May 9, 2019 (n ° 17-28767) (6), the same judges had declared the validity of a contractual breach concluded with an incapacitated employee: "except in cases of fraud or defect of consent, not alleged in the present case, a termination agreement could be validly concluded by an employee declared unfit for his post following an industrial accident ”.

The Court of Cassation displayed a strict interpretation of the system by increasing the cases of nullity of the contractual breach while adopting a flexible position on other points.

___________

Cass., Soc., July 3, 2019, n ° 17-14232: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038762761

 

Cass., Soc., March 27, 2019, n ° 17-23586: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038373489  

(3) Cass., Soc., June 5, 2019, n ° 18-10901: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038629629

 

L. 1237-12, Labor code: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000019071185&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20080627  

(5) Cass., Soc., May 15, 2019, n ° 17-28547: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038507997

 

Cass., Soc., May 9, 2019, n ° 17-28767: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038488601

Read or re-read our other CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille) articles:

. Conventional termination: details on the formalism of the signing of the agreement.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-precisions-sur-formalisme-signature-convention-rupture,32672.html

. Conventional breach: details from the Court of Cassation on the right of withdrawal.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-precisions-cour-cassation-sur-droit-retractation,32484.html

. Conventional rupture interview: details concerning the assistance of the employer.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/entretien-rupture-conventionnelle-precisions-concernant-assistance-employeur,32426.html

. Conventional termination: compliance with the regime applicable to employees eligible for a retirement pension (pension de retraite).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-conformite-regime-social-fiscal-des-indemnites-versees,31905.html

. Invalidity of an undated conventional rupture.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/nullite-une-rupture-conventionnelle-non-datee-cass-mars-2019-23586,31600.html

 

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

Claire Chardès juriste

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 27/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 1 jour

1) Les solutions relatives à la procédure de la rupture conventionnelle.

Dans une interprétation plutôt rigoureuse, la Cour de cassation a estimé, le 3 juillet 2019 (n° 17-14232) [1], que « seule la remise au salarié d’un exemplaire de la convention signé des deux parties lui permet de demander l’homologation de la convention et d’exercer son droit de rétractation en toute connaissance de cause ».

Ainsi, les juges ont accentué les exigences en termes de formalisme entourant la conclusion de la rupture conventionnelle en ce qu’il en ressort la nécessité pour l’employeur de se ménager la preuve de la remise au salarié d’un exemplaire signé du formulaire CERFA.

La sanction est telle que si cette preuve n’est pas rapportée, la rupture conventionne est nulle.

Est encourue une sanction similaire dans le cas où « la date de signature de la convention de rupture, non mentionnée sur la convention, était incertaine et qu’il n’était pas permis de déterminer le point de départ du délai de rétractation ».

Tel est formulé l’attendu de la Cour de cassation du 27 mars 2019 (n° 17-23586) [2], qui considère dès lors que la rupture du contrat de travail est « sans cause réelle et sérieuse ».

En revanche, d’après un arrêt du 5 juin 2019 (n° 18-10901) [3], la nullité de la rupture conventionnelle ne peut être prononcée du seul fait « l’assistance de l’employeur lors de l’entretien préalable à la signature de la convention de rupture ». Il faut que cette assistance ait « engendré une contrainte ou une pression pour le salarié qui se présente seul à l’entretien ».

La Cour de cassation ajoute donc une condition supplémentaire par rapport aux dispositions du Code du travail qui prévoit pourtant, en son article L. 1237-12 [4], que « l’employeur a la faculté de se faire assister quand le salarié en fait lui-même usage ».

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-quel-bilan-jurisprudentiel-pour-2019,33312.html

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

Claire Chardès juriste

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 17/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 1 semaine

L’appréciation de la réalité du statut de cadre dirigeant à l’aune du contexte contractuel.

A l’occasion de l’arrêt précité du 30 mai 2018 (n° 16-25557), un salarié, expert-comptable, tentant de s’extraire de la qualification de cadre dirigeant avançait que celle-ci aurait dû être précisée par écrit pour qu’elle lui soit opposable par son employeur.

A cette fin il invoquait diverses dispositions de la convention collective alors applicable à son contrat de travail. En l’occurrence, la Cour de cassation balaye cet argument, énonçant que la convention collective invoquée ne prévoyait aucune disposition « subordonnant l’exclusion, pour les cadres dirigeants, de la réglementation de la durée du travail, à l’existence d’un document contractuel écrit ».

Au contraire, lorsque dans l’arrêt du 7 septembre 2017 (n° 15-24725) [8], la Cour de cassation relève que le salarié, responsable de centre de profits, était soumis à une convention individuelle de forfait jours, elle en tire la conséquence suivante : l’accord entre les parties exclue la qualité de cadre dirigeant.

Il était en plus établi que « les parties avaient signé une promesse d’engagement précisant "votre emploi de la catégorie cadre est régi par un accord d’annualisation du temps de travail sur la base de 218 jours" ».

Ainsi, la Cour de cassation va même jusqu’à énoncer que la Cour d’appel « n’avait pas à procéder à une recherche sur l’éventuelle qualité de cadre dirigeant du salarié ». Celle-ci avait donc « souverainement déduit l’existence d’heures supplémentaires ».

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/cadres-dirigeants-panorama-jurisprudences-2018-2019,33223.html#t30g6ckIxcXQkyyg.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 12/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 semaines

The qualification of an executive officer (cadre dirigeant) makes it possible to rule out the application of regulations on working time to employees who benefit from them.

Filled with issues, this qualification was modeled by the “Cour de cassation” judges who, during the years 2015 and 2016, came to flesh out the requirements necessary to grant such a status, before turning back. Judges' decisions have now stabilized.

In the last two years, answers have also been provided about the importance given to the written word before recognizing or not the quality of senior manager to the employee.

1) The prominence of legal criteria in determining the application of executive status

The French Labor Code in its article L. 3111-2 (1) provides three criteria for conferring executive status on an employee, thereby excluding the application of the regulations on working time: "Are considered as having the quality of executive manager of the executives who are entrusted with responsibilities whose importance implies a great independence in the organization of their schedule, who are empowered to make decisions in a largely autonomous way and who receive a remuneration lying in the highest levels of compensation systems in their business or establishment. "

The Court of Cassation had added a fourth element, that of participation in the management of the company (2). It then added that this element was not a criterion in its own right (3), which could not be substituted for the legal criteria.

By a decision of October 24, 2018 (n ° 17-20477) (4), the social chamber confirmed this position. Indeed, she considers that the judges of the fund should have "[examine] the situation of the employee with respect to these three legal criteria" before granting the request of the employee. The latter intended to obtain a reminder of overtime. However, the company opposed his status as an executive officer, excluding the statement and payment of any overtime. To this, the Court of Appeal replied that the employer does not show that "the latter actually participated in the management of the company", without finding out whether the three criteria prescribed by law was met. Thus, the Court of Cassation scrupulously recalled in its expected said criteria.

In a decision delivered a few months before, on May 30, 2018 (n° 16-25557) (5), the High Court judges did not refer to the fourth Praetorian criterion of effective participation. In fact, in the first part of its expectations, the Court of Cassation merely noted that "the person concerned had full discretion in the organization of his schedule, enjoyed a very wide power of decision and received in the highest levels of the firm "before concluding" that he had the quality of executive officer ".

The Court of Cassation seems to perpetuate the priority given to the legal criteria, while adjusting their application, in two judgments delivered in June 2019:

- On June 19, 2019 (n°18-11083) (6), if she acknowledged that the first two were fulfilled (great independence in the organization of the timetable, remuneration among the highest), she noted, however, that the last (autonomy in the exercise of these missions) was not satisfied "so that he did not participate in the management of the company", before finally stating that "the employee [co-manager] does not could claim the quality of senior manager.
 

- In a previous decision of  October 2nd 2019 (n° 17-28940) (7), the social chamber retains a very factual approach by including a bundle of indices such as the fact that the employee, head of establishment, " had to be present within the structure ten half-days a week ", that" he could only sign checks with the authorization of the board of directors ", that he was only allowed to" propose recruitments "without power sign a work contract. From these elements it holds, like the Court of Appeal, that the employee "did not have the quality of senior management".

2) The assessment of the reality of senior management status in the light of the contractual context

On the occasion of the aforementioned decision of May 30th, 2018 (No. 16-25557), an employee, a chartered accountant, attempting to get out of the qualification of senior executive argued that it should have been specified in writing to be enforceable by his employer. To this end he relied on various provisions of the collective agreement then applicable to his employment contract. In this case, the Court of Cassation sweeps this argument, stating that the collective agreement invoked provided no provision "subordinating the exclusion, for senior management, from the regulation of hours of work, the existence of a written contractual document ".

On the contrary, when in the decision of  September 7th, 2017 (n ° 15-24725) (8), the Court of Cassation notes that the employee, responsible for a profit center, was subject to an individual flat-rate agreement. The consequence is that the agreement between the parties excludes the quality of senior executive. In addition, it was established that "the parties had signed an undertaking pledge stating" your employment in the executive category is governed by an annualization agreement of working time on the basis of 218 days ". Thus, the Court of Cassation goes so far as to state that the Court of Appeal "did not have to carry out a search on the possible quality of senior manager of the employee". It had therefore "supremely deduced the existence of overtime".

_____________________

L. 3111-2, Labor Code: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006902439&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20080501 Cass. Soc., 31 January 2012, n ° 10-24412 (for example): https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000025287680&fastReqId=1816798375&fastPos=10 Cass. Soc., June 22, 2016, n ° 14-29246: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000032777089 Cass. Soc., October 24, 2018, n ° 17-20477: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000037556313&fastReqId=595215665&fastPos=1 Cass. Soc., May 30, 2018, n ° 16-25557: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000037043026 Cass. Soc., June 19, 2019, n ° 18-11083: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000038708874&fastReqId=900921464&fastPos=1 Cass. Soc., October 2, 2019, n ° 17-28940: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000039213556&fastReqId=1159818159&fastPos=1

(8) Cass. Soc., September 7, 2017, No. 15-24725:

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000035537175&fastReqId=1385209068&fastPos=1

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

Claire Chardès juriste

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 08/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 semaines

The movement of December 5th 2019, possibly with the aim of extending over the following days, will necessarily have consequences for the employees. Whether they are strikers or not, they have rights.

1) For employees who will strike

The right to strike is a right constitutionally provided for in the Preamble to the 1946 Constitution (1). Employees who exercise it enjoy protection. The notion of strike is however precisely framed by the judges.

1.1. What protection is conferred by the right to strike?

If the Labor Code is rather silent in terms of strike, it nevertheless provides in its article L. 2511-1 (2) that the strike employee is protected against:

- The rupture of work (except in case of gross negligence on his part)

- Discriminatory measures (in terms of social benefits and remuneration, in particular).

However, to benefit from these protections, one must fulfill the conditions that characterize the exercise of the right to strike.

1.2. Under what conditions are we protected?

• The cessation of work must be collective within the company

The first exception to this rule is the case of companies employing only one employee. The latter will be allowed to strike. (3) The other case of derogation concerns the employee who, even if he is the only one to strike in his company, participates in a national strike which supports professional demands. (4)

• The claims defended are of a professional nature

Purely political strikes, protesting against government policies, are firmly prohibited.

Rallying to a national movement, on the other hand, is possible provided that the demands placed on it relate directly to the workers.

For example, when the cessation of work is "intended to renegotiate the government pension reform project", it is considered to fall within the scope of the right to strike. (5)

2) For employees who are going to work

In principle, the contract of employment continues normally: the employee is at the disposal of his employer and the employer provides work to his employee and remunerates him.

In practice, several obstacles can disrupt the normal execution of labor relations.

Whether on the initiative of the employee or his employer, several solutions are generally considered.

2.1. How to use telework?

Telework must be set up within the company by collective agreement or by a charter.

Otherwise, the employer and the employee can agree on the use of this type of work organization (6).

When, in the first case, telework is provided for by collective agreement or by a charter, the employer may refuse but must give reasons for its decision.

In the end, telecommuting can be a solution that can be suggested to the company.

Since the September 2017 ordinances, telework is almost a right when it is casual.

If he wants to refuse, the employer must justify it, demonstrating that remote work disrupts the smooth running of the company.

2.2. Can the employer ask the employee to work overtime to deal with the absences of other employees?

The employer may require non-strikers to work overtime to deal with the absence of other employees.

Overtime is done at the request of the employer only. Not being considered as a modification of the contract of employment, the employee can not oppose this request of the employer, provided however that this request respects the allowed quota of overtime. (7)

2.3. How to manage absences and delays?

The non-striking employee who can not go to his place of work or who is late due to a strike action must notify his employer by any means (SMS, e-mail, LRAR) in accordance with the standard provisions rules of procedure in force in the company for example.

By providing proof, or at least informing his employer, the employee can avoid the risk of disciplinary action against him.

 

Préambule de la Constitution du 27 octobre 1946 : https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/le-bloc-de-constitutionnalite/preambule-de-la-constitution-du-27-octobre-1946 L. 2511-1, Code du travail : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006902372&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20080501 Cass., Soc., 13 novembre 1996, n° 93-42.247 : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000007037544 Cass., Soc., 29 mars 1995, n° 93-41863 : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000007033757&fastReqId=2062082740&fastPos=1 Cass., Soc., 15 février 2006, n° 04-45.738 : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000007050416 L. 1229-2 et suivants, Code du travail : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=687F109FBA33A27F3F8ADF0B7439566C.tplgfr25s_1?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000025558058&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20191204 Cass., Soc., 9 mars 1999, n° 96-43.718 : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000007039616

 

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

Claire Chardès

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 08/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 semaines

In its decision of November 14th, 2019 No. 18-15682, the Court of Cassation (1) ruled on the characterization of indirect discrimination of an employee who is not relocated to her previous job, upon her return from work. parental leave, contrary to the provisions of Article L. 1225-55 of the Labor Code (2).

1) Background and context

Ms. X. is an accountant with Kiosque Or.

She benefits from a parental leave of 2 years and 9 months, at the end of which she returns to the company.

However, the resumption of work does not go as planned: Mrs X. is assigned to "administrative and secretarial tasks", i.e. tasks that do not correspond to her initial level of responsibility.

In the meantime, Mr. Y had been recruited to replace her as an accountant.

The employer had wished to keep Mr. Y on this "unique" position within the company, even after the return of Mrs. X.

In other words, the employee had not found "her previous job or a similar job" upon her return, and that was not going to happen.

2) Moral harassment, the French argument rejected

The employee first attempts to obtain recognition of harassment.

For her, "it is up to the judge to examine all the elements relied on by the employee, taking into account the medical documents possibly produced [...]", which she reproaches him for not having done.

In addition, it is stated in particular that "the employee had her duties changed upon her return from parental leave, which suggested a situation of moral harassment".

The argument does not succeed either in the Court of Appeal or in the Court of Cassation.

The latter considers that "the plea only serves to challenge the sovereign appraisal by the Court of Appeal of the evidence and fact from which it has [...] inferred the absence of precise facts making it possible to presume the existence of 'moral harassment'.

So we had to find another way.

3) Indirect discrimination, the salutary European argument

The employee therefore substantiated her appeal on the existence of "discrimination related to her pregnancy status".

The Court of Cassation welcomes this plea, raising the debate to take into account the "significantly higher number of women than men who choose to benefit from a leave

In the light of this extra-legal data, the judges consider that the employer has infringed the provisions invoked by Mrs X., namely the 'framework agreement on parental leave contained in the Annex to Directive 96/34. Council Directive of 3 June 1996 '.

Indeed, the employee argues that "this framework agreement constitutes a commitment of the social partners [...] to implement, by minimum requirements, measures intended to promote equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women. by offering them an opportunity to reconcile their professional responsibilities and their family obligations "before adding" that the framework agreement on parental leave contributes to fundamental objectives [...], objectives which are linked to the improvement of living conditions and the existence of adequate social protection for workers, in this case those who have applied for or taken parental leave. ".

Thus, the Court of Cassation concluded that the Court of Appeal should have investigated whether "the decision of the employer [...] to entrust the employee, upon return from her parental leave, only administrative and secretarial tasks" unrelated to his former accounting duties was not an indication of the existence of indirect discrimination on the ground of sex and whether that decision was justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination ".

The expected is inspired by one of the last decisions judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In fact, the latter had considered that the rules which allow the dismissal he enjoys part-time parental leave "is calculated" on the basis of the reduced remuneration he receives when the dismissal takes place ".

The CJEU pointed out two elements in support of its decision: on the one hand, the regulation is intended to apply in "the situation where a considerably higher number of women than men choose to benefit from parental leave. part-time "and, on the other hand," the resulting difference in treatment cannot be explained by objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex "(4).

For the calculation of the termination indemnity as well as for the legal obligation of re-employment, the judges of the High Court shall ensure that the applicable rules are not applied in the same way to all so that one of the both sexes is discriminated against.

To this end, they draw on the ingredients of the decision of the CJEU, so that the impossibility of characterizing moral harassment does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle to obtaining damages for the breach of the legal obligation.

(1) Cass., Soc., October 14, 2019, No. 18-15682

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000039419076&fastReqId=1361546941&fastPos=1

(2) https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/arrets_publies_2986/chambre_sociale_3168/2019_9139/novembre_9548/1567_14_43913.html

(3) L. 1225-55 of the Labor Code, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=C2B1EBD7022C152B933FDECA4A306633.tplgfr30s_2?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006195596&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20080501

(4) Art. 157, TFEU,

(5) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT

(6) CJEU, 8 May 2019, C 486/18, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=213859&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3059599

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 08/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 semaines
La discrimination indirecte, l’argument européen salutaire.

La salariée a donc étayé son pourvoi sur l’existence d’une « discrimination liée à son état de grossesse ».

La Cour de cassation accueille ce moyen, en élevant le débat à la prise en compte du « nombre considérablement plus élevé de femmes que d’hommes qui choisissent de bénéficier d’un congé parental ».

A la lumière de cette donnée extra-juridique, les juges estiment que l’employeur a violé les dispositions invoquées par Madame X., à savoir l’ « accord-cadre sur le congé parental figurant à l’annexe de la Directive 96/34/CE, du Conseil, du 3 juin 1996 ».

En effet, la salarié avance que « cet accord-cadre constitue un engagement des partenaires sociaux […] de mettre en place, par des prescriptions minimales, des mesures destinées à promouvoir l’égalité des chances et de traitement entre les hommes et les femmes en leur offrant une possibilité de concilier leurs responsabilités professionnelles et leurs obligations familiales » avant d’ajouter « que l’accord-cadre sur le congé parental participe des objectifs fondamentaux […], objectifs qui sont liés à l’amélioration des conditions de vie et de travail ainsi qu’à l’existence d’une protection sociale adéquate des travailleurs, en l’occurrence ceux ayant demandé ou pris un congé parental. ».

Ainsi, dans son arrêt du 14 novembre 2019), la Cour de cassation conclut que la Cour d’appel aurait dû rechercher si « la décision de l’employeur […] de ne confier à la salariée, au retour de son congé parental, que des tâches d’administration et de secrétariat sans rapport avec ses fonctions antérieures de comptable ne constituait pas un élément laissant supposer l’existence d’une discrimination indirecte en raison du sexe et si cette décision était justifiée par des éléments objectifs étrangers à toute discrimination ».

L’attendu s’inspire profondément de l’un des derniers arrêts de la Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne.

En effet, cette dernière avait estimé qu’était contraire à l’article 157 TFUE [3] la réglementation qui permet que l’ « indemnité de licenciement » et l’ « allocation de congé de reclassement déterminées » du travailleurs licencié « au moment où il bénéficie d’un congé parental à temps partiel » soient calculées « sur la base de la rémunération réduite qu’il perçoit quand le licenciement intervient ».

La CJUE relevait deux éléments à l’appui de sa décision : d’une part, la réglementation a vocation à s’appliquer dans « la situation où un nombre considérablement plus élevé de femmes que d’hommes choisissent de bénéficier d’un congé parental à temps partiel » et, d’autre part, « la différence de traitement qui en résulte ne peut pas s’expliquer par des facteurs objectivement justifiés et étrangers à toute discrimination fondée sur le sexe » [4].

Pour le calcul de l’indemnité de licenciement comme pour l’obligation légale de réemploi, les juges de la Haute Cour veillent donc à ce que les règles applicables ne soient pas appliquées de la même manière à tous de telle sorte que l’un des deux sexes soit discriminé [5].

A cette fin, ils puisent dans les ingrédients de la décision de la CJUE [6], de sorte que l’impossibilité de caractériser le harcèlement moral ne constitue pas un obstacle insurmontable à l’obtention de dommages-intérêts en réparation du manquement à l’obligation légale de réemploi.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/conge-parental-education-salariee-non-reintegree-peut-arguer-une-discrimination,33091.html#PHQyLmHlPAIf6ctp.99

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

Claire Chardès juriste

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 08/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 semaines
1) Pour les salariés qui feront grève.

Le droit de grève est un droit constitutionnellement prévu par le Préambule de la Constitution de 1946 [1]. Les salariés qui l’exercent bénéficient d’une protection. La notion de grève est toutefois précisément encadrée par les juges.

1.1.) Quelle protection est conférée par le droit de grève ?

Si le Code du travail est plutôt taiseux en matière de grève, il prévoit tout de même en son article L. 2511-1 [2] que le salarié gréviste est protégé contre :

La rupture de de travail (sauf en cas de faute lourde de sa part) ; Les mesures discriminatoires (en matière d’avantages sociaux et de rémunération, notamment).

Cependant, pour bénéficier de ces protections, il faut remplir les conditions qui caractérisent l’exercice du droit de grève.

1.2) A quelles conditions un gréviste est protégé ?

1.2.1) La cessation du travail doit être collective au sein de l’entreprise.

La première exception à cette règle concerne le cas des entreprises qui n’emploient qu’un seul et unique salarié. Ce dernier sera autorisé à faire grève. [3] L’autre cas de dérogation concerne le salarié qui, même s’il est seul à faire grève au sein de son entreprise, participe à un mouvement de grève national qui soutient des revendications professionnelles. [4]

1.2.2) Les revendications défendues sont d’ordre professionnel.

Les grèves purement politiques, protestant contre les politiques gouvernementales, sont fermement interdites.

En revanche, le ralliement à un mouvement national est possible à condition que les revendications qui y sont portées concernent directement les travailleurs salariés.
Par exemple, lorsque la cessation du travail a « pour but d’obtenir la renégociation du projet gouvernemental de réforme de retraites », elle est considérée comme entrant dans le champ d’application du droit de grève. [5]

Pour lire l'intégralité de l'article, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/greve-decembre-2019-salaries-cadres-cadres-dirigeants-quels-sont-vos-droits,33140.html#XW6Yxc4FBHo0cx7M.99

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

Claire Chardès juriste

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 01/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 3 semaines

Le Tribunal de Grande instance de Metz a ouvert une procédure de liquidation judiciaire à l’égard de la SAS Flower Power Productions ayant pour activité les arts du spectacle vivant, la SCP Noel Nodee Lanzatta étant désignée mandataire liquidateur.

Constatant que pendant la période suspecte, la SAS Flower Power Productions a embauché 50 salariés intermittents du spectacle alors que sa situation financière était fortement obérée.

Le liquidateur a courant octobre 2017 assigné l’ensemble des salariés avoir de voir prononcer la nullité de l’ensemble des CDD des salariés sur le fondement des article L. 632-1 et R. 662-3 du code de commerce.

Le liquidateur demandait au Tribunal de Grande Instance de Metz de constater que l’état de cessation des paiements est intervenu le 1er décembre 2015 et que les CDD des artistes et techniciens ont été conclus pendant la période suspecte, de dire que les 50 CDD sont nuls et de nuls effet.

Monsieur X a été engagé par la SAS Flower Power Productions dans le cadre d’une succession de contrats à durée déterminée d’usage en qualité d’Opérateur Vidéo, respectivement le 4 janvier 2017, le 17 février 2017, le 14 mars 2017, le 31 mars 2017 et le 20 avril 2017.

Monsieur X demandait au Tribunal de dire et juger que son contrat de travail du 20 avril 2017 est valide et de fixer sa créance au passif de la procédure collective pour le règlement des rémunérations contractuelles dues au titre de l’exécution du CDD conclu le 20 avril 2017 aux sommes de 3750 euros de rappel de salaires au titre des jours travaillés les 3,5,6,9,10,13, 18 19 et 20 mai 2017, 375 euros au titre des congés payés afférents et 2250 euros pour les salaires restants dus au titre des CDD pour les 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 17 et 18 juin 2017.

 

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/spectacle-vivant-cdd-periode-suspecte-pas-nullite-absence-desequilibre-dans-les,33044.html#HtbEZhUZQZT4GcdJ.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 01/12/19
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 4 semaines

Attention, cutting corporate spirit!

On 23 October (1), the Court of Cassation confirmed the dismissal for serious misconduct of a manager who had his team participate in a team bulding which one of the activities in the program include inviting employees to walk barefoot on glass.

1. Facts and procedure

During this "team booster", "the last test was to break in turn a glass bottle wrapped in a towel with a hammer, to deposit the broken glass on a piece of cloth lying on the ground and to take a few steps on the glass thus broken barefoot ".

Mr. X., an employee among all the others who "executed themselves", refused to participate. He "would be out of the room in tears" before he was "forced to explain to the group that he had decided not to walk on the pieces of glass."

The occupational doctor had been alerted by Mr. X., then a respondent had also been led by the company.

On the one hand, it was found that Mr. X had to explain that he could not participate "because he was a carrier of a pathology" and "that he had reacted strongly emotionally because of his isolation fearing retaliation from his manager on his annual bonus.

On the other hand, for all other employees, the incident had generated "tension and discomfort described on different scales" by each of them.

At the end of the investigation, the manager had been dismissed for serious misconduct.

2. For the manager, the glass half full

The dismissed employee then contests his dismissal, claiming that he had "only complied with the instructions of his employer". Indeed, it was "in accordance with the instructions of his employer" that he had entrusted "the organization of this event to a provider referenced by him".

Thus, according to the employee, "the employer who requires the employee to supervise a risky activity cannot blame him for the realization of this risk in the context of this organized activity under the conditions he has imposed".

He also tried to discredit the dismissal procedure followed by the employer. Informed the day after the occurrence of the facts by the occupational doctor, the company would have been too late before initiating an investigation.

Thus, by dismissing the employee only on February 18 when the incident occurred on December 3, "the employer can not be allowed to rely on an incomplete knowledge of the alleged facts and the consequential need to implement an investigation when it was slow to implement this investigation and to draw the consequences ".

3. For the Court of Cassation, half-empty glass

The Court of Cassation sweeps the argument relating to the procedure; for it, the ground of appeal is "new", "mixed fact and law" and therefore, "inadmissible".

With regard to the justification of the dismissal, the judges of the High Court held that, of the absence of intervention of the employee, during the internship, "to preserve the physical and psychological integrity of his collaborators", it results the "lack of knowledge of its obligations resulting from the provisions of Article L. 4122-1 of the Labor Code".

Thus, the serious fault is characterized.

This decision gives a new illustration of the obligation of security which each employee is debtor with regard to his colleagues.

Directly based on Article L. 4122-1 of French Labor Code (2), the expected gives the opportunity to remember the content of this obligation:

"In accordance with the instructions given to him by the employer, under the conditions laid down in the rules of procedure for the companies required to draw up one, it is the responsibility of each worker to take care, according to his training and according to his possibilities, of his health and safety and that of others involved in his acts or omissions at work "

By extending the scope of this obligation beyond the normal framework of the execution of work, the position of the social chamber is a reflection of the practices in vogue in companies as well as outside. Indeed, at the time of prevention campaigns against extreme hazing and other weekend integration that go wrong, even the professional world and its leaders are invited to vigilance.

Lastly, the subordination link which binds the organizers to the Management, had itself validated the choice of provider, does not exempt them from their obligations towards other employees.

Only representatives of the hierarchy during the team-building, the employee manager must ensure the safety of the members of his team during the proposed activities.

____________

Cass. Soc., October 23, 2019, n ° 18-14260: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000039307323&fastReqId=732944503&fastPos=1

 

(2) L. 4122-1, French Labor Code: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=57F0DE6900C6573EE9F5E28202DE42A6.tplgfr43s_1?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006178067&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&dateTexte=20180401

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

Claire Chardès

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