frederic.chhum

Par frederic.chhum le 30/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 3 semaines 6 jours

Following Decree n° 2020-1066 of August 17, 2020, the rate of last resort jurisdiction before the Labor Court is now 5,000 euros (instead of 4,000 euros previously) as of September 1st, 2020.

This new rate of last resort jurisdiction is applicable for proceedings before the industrial tribunal instituted as of September 1, 2020.

Source:

Decree n ° 2020-1066 of August 17, 2020

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000042243585/2020-09-30/

Frédéric CHHUM avocat and member of the council of the Paris Bar Association (mandate 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

.Paris: 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 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 30/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 3 semaines 6 jours

Suite au décret n° 2020-1066 du 17 août 2020, le taux de compétence en dernier ressort devant le Conseil de prud’hommes est désormais de 5000 euros (au lieu de 4000 euros auparavant) à compter du 1er septembre 2020.

Ce nouveau taux de compétence en dernier ressort est applicable pour les instances devant le conseil de prud’hommes introduites à compter du 1er septembre 2020.

 

Source :

Décret n° 2020-1066 du 17 août 2020

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000042243585/2020-09-30/

 

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

.Paris: 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 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 29/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 4 semaines 3 heures

The title of this article may seem totally incongruous (even provocative) but it nonetheless covers a current current practice within companies.

However, in practice, it is not uncommon for an employee to be offered the following alternative by his employer: either he accepts a contractual termination, or he will be dismissed for economic reasons.

Indeed, the employer may have a double interest in proposing a contractual termination: when there is no economic reason and / or to limit any risk of subsequent litigation, it being specified that a contractual termination can only be canceled if the employee demonstrates that he was the victim of a defect in consent.

In such a situation, then what is the best choice for the employee?

Through this article, we will explain to you why it is always better to prefer an economic dismissal to a rupture conventionnelle unless the employee ultimately obtains the equivalent of legal and conventional indemnities for redundancy as well as compensation for unjustified dismissal at the ceiling. of the Maron scale (see § 5 below).

1) First advantage of economic redundancy (licenciement économique): the prior obligation to relocate (reclasser) the employee

The first advantage of economic dismissal over contractual termination (rupture conventionnelle) is the obligation of prior reclassification which weighs on the employer.

Indeed, to be able to validly dismiss an employee for economic reasons, the employer must be able to justify loyal and serious searches for reclassification which have remained unsuccessful.

It is only if the employer demonstrates that the reclassification of the employee cannot be carried out on the available jobs, located in the national territory in the company or other companies of the group and whose organization, activities or location operating allow the rotation of all or part of the staff (Work C. Art. L.1233-4).

Otherwise, the dismissal is automatically devoid of real cause.

2) Second advantage of redundancy: the benefit of the professional security contract (CSP) or reclassification leave

Second, unlike the rupture conventionnelle, in the event of economic redundancy, the employer must offer the employee the implementation of a more favorable mechanism than the general unemployment scheme:

- In companies with less than 1000 employees, this is the professional security contract;

- In companies or groups of at least 1000 employees, this is redeployment leave.

2.1) The professional security contract (CSP)

The CSP is a system which aims to promote the return to employment of employees made redundant for economic reasons and which is characterized by reinforced support measures as well as specific compensation.

It must be offered to any employee made redundant for economic reasons and who meets the following conditions:

- Justify at least 88 days or 610 hours worked during the last 28 months (or the last 36 months for employees aged 53 and over);

- Not having reached the age allowing to benefit from a full pension;

- Reside in the territory covered by the unemployment insurance scheme;

- Be physically fit for a job.

 

The employee has 21 days to accept or refuse the CSP.

In the event of a refusal or no response after the expiration of the 21-day period, the economic dismissal procedure continues.

If accepted, the contract is terminated at the expiration of the 21-day period and the CSP begins the next day.

The employee then benefits, for a period of 12 months, from individual and personalized follow-up provided by a referent advisor from Pôle emploi.

In addition, and on condition of proving one year of seniority, the employee receives - during the same period - a professional security allowance (ASP), the amount of which represents 75% of the reference daily salary.

In this case, the employee renounces in return for his notice (If the notice is greater than 3 months, the part of the compensatory indemnity for notice greater than 3 months is however paid to the employee.) The amount of which is paid by the employer at Pôle emploi to finance the CSP.

If the employee does not have one year of seniority, the amount of the ASP and the duration of its payment are equivalent to the amount of the return-to-work assistance allowance (ARE) (Either:

- 57% of the daily reference salary if the gross monthly salary is between 2,307.95 euros and 13,712 euros;

- 40.4% of the daily reference salary + 12.05 euros per day if the gross monthly salary is between 1,304.88 euros and 2,307.95 euros;

- 29.38 euros per day if the gross monthly salary is between 1,191.42 euros and 1,304.88 euros;

- 75% of the daily reference salary if the gross monthly salary is less than 1,191.42 euros).

In this case, the employee receives all of his compensation in lieu of notice.

2.2) Redeployment leave

Reclassification leave is variable in duration from 4 to 12 months.

Like the CSP, it allows employees to benefit from enhanced support services for returning to work.

The employee has 8 days from the date of notification of the letter of dismissal to accept the leave.

Failure to respond within this time is considered a refusal.

Redeployment leave begins during the notice period which the employee is exempt from performing and the termination of the employment contract occurs at the end of the leave. The period of redeployment leave exceeding the period of notice is not taken into account either for the calculation of paid leave or for the determination of the severance pay.

When the notice period is shorter than that of the reclassification leave, the notice period is postponed to the date of the end of the leave.

During the notice period, the employee receives the remuneration which is normally due to him during this period.

During the period exceeding the notice period, he receives a monthly allowance which is not subject to social contributions and the amount of which is at least equal to 65% of the gross monthly salary for the last 12 months preceding the notification of the dismissal without being able to be less than 85% of the minimum wage.

3) Third advantage of redundancy: a reduced or no waiting period for unemployment

The third advantage of economic redundancy relates to the lack of unemployment.

In fact, in the event of acceptance of the CSP, no deferral or waiting period applies and the employee immediately benefits from the payment of the ASP.

In the event of refusal of the CSP or reclassification leave, the 7-day waiting period applies, but the deferred compensation normally capped at 150 days is then capped at 75 days only.

If the reclassification leave is accepted, the employee is not registered with Pôle emploi and the termination of his contract only occurs at the end of the leave period. He can therefore then register as a job seeker in the usual way.

4) Fourth advantage of redundancy: the benefit of priority rehiring (priorité de réembauchage)

Lastly, in the event of economic redundancy, the employee benefits from a rehiring priority for one year following the end of his notice.

During this one-year period, the employee can, at any time, inform his former employer of his desire to benefit from this rehiring priority.

From the moment the employee expresses this desire, the employer is required to offer him all available jobs compatible with his qualification, including those in lower categories.

 

Otherwise, the employee is entitled to request compensation equal to at least 1 month's salary if he has at least 2 years of seniority and the company has at least 11 employees.

In other cases, it is the judge who sets the amount of compensation based on the damage suffered by the employee.

It should be noted that the employee in CSP also benefits from the priority of rehiring.

As for the employee on reclassification leave, he / she benefits from it, but the 12-month period runs from the end of the leave.

5) How much to negotiate his contractual termination (rupture conventionnelle) in a context of redundancy?

If, despite the benefits of redundancy, the employee wishes to accept a contractual termination, he must be vigilant in negotiating it.

Indeed,  the “ rupture conventionnelle ” has become so widespread that now (it is being diverted), and (well advised) employers almost systematically attempt to negotiate a contractual termination before initiating a dismissal procedure.

However, in this negotiation, employer and employees are not on an equal footing.

It is indeed difficult for an employee to know what he is entitled to and how far he can go in negotiating its “rupture conventionnelle”.

Especially since in practice, in 50% of cases, the “ rupture conventionnelle ”  is in reality a disguised "low cost" dismissal.

Employees must therefore know how to negotiate their departure.

In this regard, the employee must try to obtain by “ rupture conventionnelle ” what he would have obtained in the event of dismissal without real and serious cause. They are strongly advised to be assisted by a lawyer who will determine the extent of their rights.

To find out how much to negotiate his “ rupture conventionnelle ”, we refer you to our previous article Employees, executives, senior executives: how much to negotiate his contractual termination after the Macron orders? https://www.village-justice.com/articles/salaries-cadres-cadres-dirigeants-combien-negociation-rupture-conventionnelle,27827.html.

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

.Paris: 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 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 29/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 4 semaines 4 heures

Après 12 années dans le 8ème arrondissement, depuis le 1er septembre 2020, le cabinet Frédéric CHHUM AVOCATS s’est installé au 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris (Métro Anvers, Cadet, Poissonière).

Le cabinet d'avocats Frédéric CHHUM conseille principalement des salariés, cadres, cadres dirigeants (expatriés, impatriés, détachés, etc) dans le cadre de litige avec leur employeur et/ou négociations de départs.

Il a aussi développé une expertise en droit du travail de l'audiovisuel (défense des intermittents du spectacle, artistes, journalistes et pigistes).

Il défend aussi des lanceurs d'alerte, des influenceurs, des syndicats et des comités d'entreprise (CSE, CHSCT).

Maître Frédéric CHHUM intervient également pour ses clients en qualité de mandataire d'artiste ou mandataire sportif.

Maître Frédéric CHHUM est membre du Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021).

Le Cabinet dispose de 2 bureaux secondaire l’un à Nantes (depuis 2016) et l'autre à Lille (depuis 2019).

Cabinet d'Avocats Frédéric CHHUM

Nouvelle adresse : 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris

LD : 01 42 56 03 00

Portable : 06 19 92 45 47

Bureau de Nantes : 02 28 44 26 44

Bureau de Lille : 03 20 13 50 83

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

Par frederic.chhum le 27/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 7 heures

Dans son numéro du 22 septembre 2020, la gazette du Palais consacre un article à l’assurance perte de collaboration.

Maître Frédéric CHHUM est cité dans cet article.

Pour lire cet article, cliquez sur le lien pdf ci-dessous.

Cabinet d'Avocats Frédéric CHHUM

Nouvelle adresse : 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris (Métro Anvers, Cadet, Poissonnière).

LD : 01 42 56 03 00

Portable : 06 19 92 45 47

Bureau de Nantes : 02 28 44 26 44

Bureau de Lille : 03 20 13 50 83

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

Par frederic.chhum le 27/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 8 heures

After 12 years in the 8th arrondissement, since September 1st, 2020, the law firm has moved to 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris (Metro Anvers, Cadet, Poissonière).

The law firm Frédéric CHHUM mainly advises employees, executives, executives (expatriates, impatriates, seconded, etc.) in the context of litigation with their employer and / or departure negotiations.

He has also developed expertise in audiovisual labor law (defense of intermittent entertainment workers, artists, journalists and freelancers).

He also defends whistleblowers, influencers, unions and works councils (CSE, CHSCT).
Maître Frédéric CHHUM also works for his clients as an artist's agent or sports agent.

Maître Frédéric CHHUM is member of the Paris Bar Counsil (mandate 2019-2021).

The Firm has 2 secondary offices, one in Nantes (since 2016) and Lille (since 2019).
Law firm Frédéric CHHUM
 

New address: 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris
LD: 01 42 56 03 00
Mobile: 06 19 92 45 47
Nantes office: 02 28 44 26 44
Lille office: 03 20 13 50 83

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

 

Version Française

CHHUM AVOCATS : nouvelle adresse au 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris depuis le 1er mars 2020

Après 12 années dans le 8ème arrondissement, depuis le 1er septembre 2020, le cabinet s’est installé au 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris (Métro Anvers, Cadet, Poissonière).

Le cabinet d'avocats Frédéric CHHUM conseille principalement des salariés, cadres, cadres dirigeants (expatriés, impatriés, détachés, etc) dans le cadre de litige avec leur employeur et/ou négociations de départs.

Il a aussi développé une expertise en droit du travail de l'audiovisuel (défense des intermittents du spectacle, artistes, journalistes et pigistes).

Il défend aussi des lanceurs d'alerte, des influenceurs, des syndicats et des comités d'entreprise (CSE, CHSCT).

Maître Frédéric CHHUM intervient également pour ses clients en qualité de mandataire d'artiste ou mandataire sportif.

Maître Frédéric CHHUM est membre du Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021).

Le Cabinet dispose de 2 bureaux secondaire l’un à Nantes (depuis 2016) et à Lille (depuis 2019).

Cabinet d'Avocats Frédéric CHHUM

Nouvelle adresse : 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris

LD : 01 42 56 03 00

Portable : 06 19 92 45 47

Bureau de Nantes : 02 28 44 26 44

Bureau de Lille : 03 20 13 50 83

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

Par frederic.chhum le 25/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 jours

Dal 1° settembre 2020, l'uso delle mascherine nelle aziende diventerà obbligatorio, e sarà compito dei datori di lavoro far rispettare tale obbligo.

A tal fine, il datore di lavoro potrà diffondere l’informazione tramite communicazioni di servizio, l'affissione di istruzioni o nuove disposizioni nel regolamento interno.

Occorre quindi chiedersi se il rifiuto di un dipendente di indossare una mascherina possa portare ad una sanzione disciplinare o addirittura ad un licenziamento.

1) Obbligo di sicurezza rafforzato del datore di lavoro.

In primo luogo, l'obbligo di sicurezza è a carico del datore di lavoro, che deve, ai sensi dell'articolo L4121-1 du Code du travail, prendere "le misure necessarie per garantire la sicurezza e proteggere la salute fisica e mentale dei lavoratori".

Tuttavia, in secondo luogo, l'articolo L4122-1 du Code du travail prevede che "alle condizioni previste dal regolamento interno delle imprese tenute a redigere tale regolamento, spetta a ciascun lavoratore prendersi cura, secondo la sua formazione e secondo le sue possibilità, della sua salute e sicurezza, così come quella delle altre persone coinvolte dalle sue azioni o omissioni sul lavoro".

Pertanto, se il datore di lavoro ha dato queste istruzioni di sicurezza e il dipendente non le rispetta, si sottopone ad eventuali sanzioni disciplinari.

2) Un licenziamento per rifiuto di indossare la mascherina è giustificato?

Le sanzioni disciplinari sono rigorosamente regolamentate: il datore di lavoro deve dimostrare una « giusta causa » (« cause réelle et sérieuse ») per potere licenziare.

In caso contrario, il datore di lavoro rischia di essere soggetto ad azioni legali di risarcimento del dipendente.

La Corte di Cassazione aveva già affermato, in data 23 marzo 2005 (n. 03-42404), che un dipendente che si rifiuta di indossare un casco protettivo in un cantiere ove è necessario, e ciò in violazione delle norme di sicurezza, potrebbe essere licenziato per inadempimento colposo grave.

Pertanto, in caso di rifiuto di indossare la mascherina, questa giurisprudenza potrebbe essere utilizzata a sostegno di una procedura di licenziamento, se le seguenti condizioni sono presenti :

In primo luogo, per stabilire una giusta causa di licenziamento, l’inadempimento colposo deve essere di una certa gravità.

La Corte di Cassazione ha già dichiarato, in particolare in una sentenza del 7 luglio 2016 (n. 14-26388), che il mancato rispetto delle norme di sicurezza relative ai beni e alle persone costituisce un inadempimento colposo che rende impossibile la prosecuzione del rapporto di lavoro.

Un altro requisito è temporale : la procedura di licenziamento deve essere avviata entro due mesi dal momento in cui il datore di lavoro è venuto a conoscenza di questi fatti.

Inoltre, il datore di lavoro non può avviare una procedura disciplinare di licenziamento basandosi su questo fatto se il fatto è già stato sanzionato.

Ad esempio, un dipendente che si è rifiutato di indossare la mascherina e che, ad esempio, è stato avvertito per iscritto di questo fatto non può essere licenziato per lo stesso fatto.

Tuttavia, ciò non avverrà in caso di recidiva, se il dipendente ha rifiutato di nuovo di indossare la mascherina dopo essere stato sanzionato.

In questo caso, il datore di lavoro riacquisterà il suo potere sanzionatorio e potrà avviare nuovi procedimenti disciplinari a tale riguardo, fino al licenziamento.

Infine, occorre prendere in considerazione il principio di proporzionalità, in particolare per quanto riguarda l'anzianità del dipendente, i precedenti disciplinari, ecc...

Se tutti questi elementi sono presenti, il licenziamento di un dipendente per rifiuto di indossare la mascherina nell'impresa potrebbe essere considerato giustificato.

Nota bene : Per le attività che risultano incompatibile con l’uso della mascherina, il protocollo stabilisce che il Ministero prosegue il dialogo con le parti sociali per trovare soluzioni.

Per leggere l’articolo in versione integrale : https://www.village-justice.com/articles/masques-entreprise-quelles-sont-les-obligations-des-employeurs-salaries-compter,36436.html

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocat à la Cour et Membre du Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr
.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 25/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 jours

Dal 1° settembre 2020, l'uso delle mascherine nelle aziende diventerà obbligatorio, e sarà compito dei datori di lavoro far rispettare tale obbligo.

A tal fine, il datore di lavoro potrà diffondere l’informazione tramite communicazioni di servizio, l'affissione di istruzioni o nuove disposizioni nel regolamento interno.

Occorre quindi chiedersi se il rifiuto di un dipendente di indossare una mascherina possa portare ad una sanzione disciplinare o addirittura ad un licenziamento.

1) Obbligo di sicurezza rafforzato del datore di lavoro.

In primo luogo, l'obbligo di sicurezza è a carico del datore di lavoro, che deve, ai sensi dell'articolo L4121-1 du Code du travail, prendere "le misure necessarie per garantire la sicurezza e proteggere la salute fisica e mentale dei lavoratori".

Tuttavia, in secondo luogo, l'articolo L4122-1 du Code du travail prevede che "alle condizioni previste dal regolamento interno delle imprese tenute a redigere tale regolamento, spetta a ciascun lavoratore prendersi cura, secondo la sua formazione e secondo le sue possibilità, della sua salute e sicurezza, così come quella delle altre persone coinvolte dalle sue azioni o omissioni sul lavoro".

Pertanto, se il datore di lavoro ha dato queste istruzioni di sicurezza e il dipendente non le rispetta, si sottopone ad eventuali sanzioni disciplinari.

2) Un licenziamento per rifiuto di indossare la mascherina è giustificato?

Le sanzioni disciplinari sono rigorosamente regolamentate: il datore di lavoro deve dimostrare una « giusta causa » (« cause réelle et sérieuse ») per potere licenziare.

In caso contrario, il datore di lavoro rischia di essere soggetto ad azioni legali di risarcimento del dipendente.

La Corte di Cassazione aveva già affermato, in data 23 marzo 2005 (n. 03-42404), che un dipendente che si rifiuta di indossare un casco protettivo in un cantiere ove è necessario, e ciò in violazione delle norme di sicurezza, potrebbe essere licenziato per inadempimento colposo grave.

Pertanto, in caso di rifiuto di indossare la mascherina, questa giurisprudenza potrebbe essere utilizzata a sostegno di una procedura di licenziamento, se le seguenti condizioni sono presenti :

In primo luogo, per stabilire una giusta causa di licenziamento, l’inadempimento colposo deve essere di una certa gravità.

La Corte di Cassazione ha già dichiarato, in particolare in una sentenza del 7 luglio 2016 (n. 14-26388), che il mancato rispetto delle norme di sicurezza relative ai beni e alle persone costituisce un inadempimento colposo che rende impossibile la prosecuzione del rapporto di lavoro.

Un altro requisito è temporale : la procedura di licenziamento deve essere avviata entro due mesi dal momento in cui il datore di lavoro è venuto a conoscenza di questi fatti.

Inoltre, il datore di lavoro non può avviare una procedura disciplinare di licenziamento basandosi su questo fatto se il fatto è già stato sanzionato.

Ad esempio, un dipendente che si è rifiutato di indossare la mascherina e che, ad esempio, è stato avvertito per iscritto di questo fatto non può essere licenziato per lo stesso fatto.

Tuttavia, ciò non avverrà in caso di recidiva, se il dipendente ha rifiutato di nuovo di indossare la mascherina dopo essere stato sanzionato.

In questo caso, il datore di lavoro riacquisterà il suo potere sanzionatorio e potrà avviare nuovi procedimenti disciplinari a tale riguardo, fino al licenziamento.

Infine, occorre prendere in considerazione il principio di proporzionalità, in particolare per quanto riguarda l'anzianità del dipendente, i precedenti disciplinari, ecc...

Se tutti questi elementi sono presenti, il licenziamento di un dipendente per rifiuto di indossare la mascherina nell'impresa potrebbe essere considerato giustificato.

Nota bene : Per le attività che risultano incompatibile con l’uso della mascherina, il protocollo stabilisce che il Ministero prosegue il dialogo con le parti sociali per trovare soluzioni.

Per leggere l’articolo in versione integrale : https://www.village-justice.com/articles/masques-entreprise-quelles-sont-les-obligations-des-employeurs-salaries-compter,36436.html

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocat à la Cour et Membre du Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr
.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 25/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 2 jours

From September 1st, 2020, wearing a mask in a company becoming compulsory, it will be up to employers to enforce this obligation.

For this, it will be possible for the employer to disseminate information through memos, the posting of instructions or even new provisions in the internal regulations.

As a result, we must ask ourselves whether the fact that an employee refuses to wear a mask is likely to lead to disciplinary proceedings or even dismissal.

1) Reinforced security obligation (obligation de sécurité) of the company

In the first place, the obligation of safety is the responsibility of the employer, who must, under the terms of article L4121-1 of the Labor Code, take "the necessary measures to ensure safety and protect physical and mental health. workers ".

Nevertheless, in the second place, article L4122-1 of the Labor Code provides that “under the conditions provided for in the internal regulations for companies required to draw up one, it is up to each worker to take care, according to his training and according to his possibilities, his health and safety as well as those of other people concerned by his acts or omissions at work ”.

Thus, if the employer has given these safety instructions and the employee does not comply with them, he may be subject to disciplinary sanctions.

2) A dismissal for justified refusal to wear a mask?

Disciplinary sanctions are strictly regulated; the employer must justify a "real and serious cause" to proceed with a dismissal.

Otherwise, he risks legal action for compensation from the employee.

The Court of Cassation had already affirmed on March 23rd, 2005 (n ° 03-42404) that the employee refusing to wear a safety helmet on a site requiring such wearing disregarding the safety rules and could be dismissed for serious misconduct as a result.

Thus, in the case of refusal to wear a mask, this case law could be used in support of a dismissal procedure under different conditions.

First, to constitute a real and serious cause for dismissal, the fault committed must be of a certain seriousness.

The Court of Cassation has already affirmed, in particular in a judgment of July 7, 2016 (n ° 14-26388) that the breach of safety rules relating to goods and people constituted a fault making it impossible to maintain the employee in the company.

However, in order for this serious nature to remain, it should be remembered that the dismissal procedure be initiated within two months from the time when the employer became aware of the said facts.

In addition, the employer will not be able to initiate a disciplinary dismissal procedure if the act has already been penalized.

Thus, an employee who refused to wear a mask and who, for example, was the subject of a written warning of this fact cannot be dismissed for the same fact.

However, it will be different in the case of a repeat offense, if the employee once again refused to wear a mask after a sanction.

In this case, the employer will regain its power of sanction and may initiate a new disciplinary procedure in this regard, up to and including dismissal.

Finally, the principle of proportionality should also be taken into account, in particular with regard to the employee's length of service, his disciplinary history, etc.

If all these elements are taken into account, the dismissal of an employee for refusing to wear a mask in the company could be considered justified.

However, it remains impossible to remove the mask permanently.

In any case, the protocol affirms that for activities which would prove incompatible with the wearing of a mask, the Ministry continues the dialogue with the social partners in order to find solutions.

To read the full Article, please click on the link below.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/masques-entreprise-quelles-sont-les-obligations-des-employeurs-salaries-compter,36436.html

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocat à la Cour et Membre du Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr
.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Par frederic.chhum le 20/09/20
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 1 mois 1 semaine

1) L’activité partielle en réponse à la fermeture des établissements scolaires et des cas-contacts chez les enfants.

1.1) La fermeture des établissements scolaires et les cas-contacts.

Depuis le 1er septembre 2020, les cas de Covid-19 se sont multipliés et ont entraîné la fermeture de nombreux établissements scolaires.

Ces fermetures d’établissements et l’identification de cas-contacts chez les enfants scolarisés ont impliqué pour certains parents l’impossibilité de se rendre sur leur lieu de travail afin de garder leurs enfants.

En outre, des parents se sont retrouvés dans l’impossibilité de télétravailler. Face à ce constat, le Ministère de la Santé a décidé de réactiver le dispositif d’activité partielle pour garde d’enfants.

Ainsi, le communiqué du Ministère de la Santé du 9 septembre 2020 précise que

« les parents qui sont dans l’impossibilité de télétravailler pourront bénéficier d’un revenu de remplacement dès le premier jour de leur arrêt de travail, et au plus tard jusqu’à la fin de la période d’isolement ».

1.2) La réactivation du dispositif d’activité partielle/chômage partiel à compter du 1er septembre 2020.

A compter du 1er mai 2020, les salariés en arrêt de travail pour garde d’enfants pouvaient bénéficier du dispositif d’activité partielle.

Nous vous renvoyons à notre article Arrêt de travail pour garde d’enfants : comment ça marche ?

L’activité partielle avait été maintenue par la suite : Activité partielle, garde d’enfants et personnes vulnérables : les changements au 1er juin 2020.

Néanmoins, ce dispositif avait pris le 6 juillet 2020.

La situation sanitaire ayant évoluée, le Ministère de la Santé précise que

« les dispositifs d’indemnisation permettent de couvrir tous les arrêts concernés à partir du 1er septembre 2020 ».

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/covid-garde-enfants-retablissement-activite-partielle-compter-1er-septembre,36512.html

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

.Paris: 34 rue Pétrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300

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

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