frederic.chhum

Par frederic.chhum le 11/03/21
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 6 mois 1 semaine

Toute rupture de collaboration libérale entre avocats doit faire l’objet d’une déclaration du cabinet et du collaborateur, dans les quinze jours de la notification de la rupture, mentionnant la nature de la rupture parmi les cinq propositions suivantes :

- Rupture à l’initiative du collaborateur,

- Rupture à l’initiative de cabinet,

- Rupture à l’initiative du collaborateur pour manquement grave,

- Rupture à l’initiative du cabinet pour manquement grave,

- Rupture d’un commun accord. (Article  P.14.4.0.1 du RIBP Article crée en séance du Conseil du 8 décembre 2020)

Source site de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

http://www.avocatparis.org/mon-metier-davocat/publications-du-conseil/creations-des-articles-p14401-et-p14201

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 10/03/21
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 6 mois 1 semaine

Le mensuel légipresse de mars 2021 publie une jurisprudence obtenue par le Cabinet Frédéric CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille) en matière de référé probatoire (article 145 du CPC) pour une dessinatrice journaliste.

Pour lire l'article, cliquez sur le pdf ci-dessous.

 

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 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 09/03/21
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 6 mois 1 semaine

Le 17 février 2021, les juges de la Cour de cassation ont qualifié de « nulle » la rupture intervenue au cours de la suspension du contrat de travail à durée indéterminée (Cass., Soc., 17 février 2021, n° 18-15972).

Ce dernier résultait de la requalification par les juges d’appel des différents contrats de mission de travail temporaire dont le salarié avait fait l’objet.

Par cette décision, la Cour de cassation s’est opposée à la solution proposée par la Cour d’appel de Caen.

***

La Cour de cassation fait droit à l’argumentaire du salarié.

Tout d’abord, elle rappelle les règles applicables en matière de rupture du contrat pendant sa suspension du fait du placement du salarié en arrêt de travail.

Au visa des articles L1226-9 et L1226-13 du Code du travail, ces derniers disposent qu’

« au cours des périodes de suspension du contrat de travail du salarié consécutives à un accident du travail ou une maladie professionnelle, l’employeur ne peut rompre ce contrat que s’il justifie soit d’une faute grave de l’intéressé, soit de son impossibilité de maintenir ce contrat pour un motif étranger à l’accident ou à la maladie ».

En conséquence, la rupture intervenue en méconnaissance de cette règle est nulle.

La Cour de cassation relève que les juges du fond ont considéré que la rupture devait s’analyser en un licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse du fait que la rupture était due à la survenance de l’échéance du CDD et non pas du fait de l’arrêt de travail.

Or, ayant fait droit à la demande de requalification de la relation de travail en contrat à durée indéterminée, et après avoir constaté que le salarié avait été placé en arrêt par suite de son accident en date du 31 octobre 2012, les juges auraient dû en déduire le contrat était suspendu au moment où il a été rompu.

Il en résulte que les dispositions susmentionnées devaient s’appliquer et qu’en conséquence, la rupture du contrat de travail s’analyse en un licenciement nul.

C. cass. 17 février 2021, n°18-15972.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/requalification-cdi-contrats-interim-nullite-rupture-intervenue-pendant-une,38322.html

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

Claire Chardes

CHHUM AVOCATS LAW OFFICE (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 05/03/21
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 6 mois 2 semaines

In this final decision of January 14th, 2021 (RG n °: 17-07435), the Paris Labor Council considers that the taking of an act of the breach of the employment contract of the account manager must produce the effects of a null dismissal justified by the moral harassment of which she felt she had been the victim.

The Labor Court considers in particular that in matters of moral harassment, the company's CHSCT investigation cannot replace the judgment of the Labor Court. The judgment is not final.

1) Reminder of the facts and procedure

Ms. X was hired by DOMAXIS SA ’HLM as of March 4, 2014, under an open-ended contract, as account manager.

She last occupied and since March 1, 2017, the position of specific allocation officer, coefficient G3 for a gross remuneration of 2,046.18 euros. On November 18, 2015, Madame X was subject to a warning.

On July 18, 2017, Mrs X denounced to her employer the acts of moral harassment of which she claimed to be a victim. On July 19, 2017, Ms. X referred to the industrial tribunal a request for judicial termination of her employment contract.

By letter of November 24, 2017, she took note of the termination of her employment contract, to the exclusive fault of the employer. After the failed conciliation attempt, the case was argued at the adjudicatory hearing and then returned to the tiebreaker hearing.

At the final hearing, the parties orally set out the arguments developed in their written submissions. Mrs X, argues in support of her claims that she was the victim of acts of moral harassment which made it impossible to continue her employment contract, that her taking an act of the termination of the employment contract is attributable to her employer and that it must produce the effects of a null dismissal.

DOMAXIS SA d´HLM contests the acts of moral harassment denounced by the employee and maintains that the employee's taking action should amount to a resignation. By contradictory judgment dated January 14, 2021, the departing judge of the Paris Labor Council:

. Holds that Madame X was the victim of moral harassment.

. Holds that taking notice of the termination produces the effects of no dismissal.

. Orders DOMAXIS SA d´HLM to pay Mrs X the sums of:

- 15,000 euros in damages for no dismissal

- 4,092.36 euros for the compensation in lieu of notice

- 409.23 euros for the related paid leave

- 1,550.15 euros for contractual severance pay

- 5,000 euros in damages for moral harassment

. Ms. X rejects her claim for damages for breach of the safety obligation.

. Said that the salary sentences will bear interest at the legal rate from the receipt by the employer of the summons to the conciliation office and those of a compensatory nature, from this decision.

. Orders the delivery of an employment center certificate and a work certificate in accordance with this decision.

. Holds that there is no need to impose a penalty.

. Orders the provisional execution.

. Orders DOMAXIS SA of HLM to pay Madame X the sum of 1,500 euros under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

. Orders DOMAXIS SA D'HLM to pay all the costs.

In total, Mrs X obtains the sum of 27,551.74 euros.

The judgment is not final, with the parties having until February 15, 2021 to appeal.

 

2) On the taking of an act of termination of the employment contract

2.1) The moral harassment suffered by the employee justifies taking the act of termination to produce the effects of no dismissal.

The Paris Labor Court, on January 14, 2021 (n ° RG F 17/07435), ruling as a tie-breaker, recalls that breaches by the employer of its obligations, as long as they are sufficiently serious and recent to prevent the maintenance of the employment contract, justify the taking of an act by the employee of the breach of his contract, to the wrongs of the employer.

This rupture can then be analyzed as a dismissal without real and serious cause, where applicable in a null dismissal, if the rupture occurs because of acts of moral harassment of which the employee would have been the victim.

Proof of the breaches alleged against the employer must be reported by the employee.

The prudential judge also recalls the applicable legal provisions.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article L.1152-1 of the Labor Code, no employee must suffer repeated acts of moral harassment which have as their object or effect a deterioration of their working conditions likely to infringe their rights. and their dignity, to alter their physical or mental health or to compromise their professional future.

 

Article L. 1154-1 of the Labor Code specifies that, when a dispute arises relating to the application of the aforementioned provisions, the employee establishes facts which make it possible to presume the existence of harassment.

In view of these elements, it is for the defendant to prove that these actions do not constitute such harassment and that its decision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment.

The judge forms his conviction after ordering, if necessary, all the investigative measures he considers useful.

In this case, Mrs X, who justifies having taken note of the termination of the employment contract by letter of November 24, 2017 after having sent her employer emails dated July 18, 2017 and August 29, 2017 by which she complains of acts of moral harassment, produces the following elements:

- Several sick leaves for depression.

- A warning, which she considers unjustified, notified on November 8, 2015.

- A questionnaire dated October 18, 2016 drawn up as part of an investigation for moral harassment in which Ms. X reports an abnormal overload of work and insults to which she is the victim from another employee, Ms. Y.

- Emails of June 1, 2015 and April 25, 2016 by which she requests the regularization of her 2014 meal vouchers.

- An e-mail of December 23, 2016, under the terms of which she is a candidate for two posts of litigation officer and a follow-up e-mail of January 10, 2017 in which she is surprised to have had no response, a letter addressed to her employer on January 17, 2017 by which she refused her assignment to a position of "technical assistant" considering that it was a demotion and finally an email of January 24, 2017 by which she was surprised to be summoned to an interview for a specific allocation officer position for which she has not applied.

- Reminders from his employer, in November 2016, for not having sent his sick leave on time.

- Exchanges of letters demonstrating that a control visit was set up on July 10, 2017, while she was on sick leave, DOMAXIS SA of HLM then decided to withhold her additional salary.

- A proposal for contractual termination made by his employer.

- His employer's refusal to grant him RTT on August 7, 2015.

- Letters reminding us of unjustified absences dated November 17 and 18, 2017 while she was on sick leave.

The prud'homal judge considers, on the other hand, that Mrs X does not provide evidence demonstrating that she was the subject of a petition requesting her departure from the service or of an attempted eviction on the rehousing objectives.

In addition, he considers that the elements established by the employee, including the medical elements, nevertheless suggest the existence of moral harassment.

The prudential judge noted that DOMAXIS SA of HLM, for its part, produced elements capable of demonstrating that some of the facts invoked were justified by objective elements unrelated to any moral harassment.

 

Regarding the employee's application for the litigation position, DOMAXIS SA from HLM argues that this application was made orally, that it was also answered orally during an interview on January 13, 2017, that this The position required legal training that the employee did not have and that in order to respond to the employee's desire for mobility, a specific allocation manager position was offered to her, which the latter accepted.

The prudential judge noted that these points were confirmed by the exchanges of emails sent to the debates.

In addition, it establishes that the classification and the remuneration remained the same and that it was not, contrary to what the employee claims, a demotion.

Regarding the problem of restaurant vouchers, the labor tribunal considers that DOMAXIS SA d'HLM justifies that the difference between it and the employee on this subject was finally settled in early June 2016, after Ms. X had sent, on May 27, 2016, a table explaining its calculation.

Regarding the contractual termination, the industrial tribunal still considers that the employer justifies exchanges of emails demonstrating that the parties considered this solution which was discussed and that the employee ultimately refused, estimating the amount of the 'proposed compensation insufficient.

Regarding the reminders during the sick leaves of November 17 and 18, 2016, the labor tribunal maintains that it is up to the employee to demonstrate that she has, in accordance with the company agreement, justified her absence in sending his employer a notice of stoppage of work within 48 hours.

However, the industrial tribunal noted that Mrs X did not justify having sent her judgment on time, DOMAXIS SA from HLM claiming to have received it only 10 days later, the reminders having thus been generated automatically until upon receipt of sick leave.

The prudential judge considers that the other facts established by Ms. X are not justified by objective elements.

Indeed, the industrial tribunal notes that, if the possibility for the employer to organize, in the event of sick leave, a counter visit is expressly provided for by the company agreement of December 7, 2012 which provides that in the event of the employee's absence during the inspection or the employee's refusal to submit to the counter-visit, the employer immediately ceases the payment of the additional salary after having informed the employee, it results from the elements contributed to the discussions and the explanations given by the parties that the control put in place by DOMAXIS SA from HLM could not be completed, not because of the absence or refusal of the employee, but because her name did not appear on the letterbox of the person by whom she claimed to be accommodated, without the controller or the employer nevertheless seeking to contact her to obtain this name specified and the visit to be successful.

In addition, the labour law judge considers that the result of a first CHSCT investigation relating to acts of moral harassment concerning another employee, and of the questionnaire completed by Ms. X on October 18, 2016, that the latter herself been the victim of repeated insults and serious threats from a hierarchical superior, which DOMAXIS SA d'HLM does not dispute, claiming to have taken all the necessary measures to dismiss the employee responsible for the acts.

The labor court judge considers that it results from this same hearing and the assessment interviews that Mrs X complained of an overload of work, confirmed by several exchanges of emails concerning in particular Mrs Z, DOMAXIS SA of HLM having never taken the slightest measure on this subject and taken on the contrary the decision to sanction Mrs X who was no longer able to cope with all of these tasks by a warning in November 2015 or to refuse her RTT, at unjustified reason for an allegedly missed deadline.

According to the labor court judge, it is thus established that the employee was the victim of acts of moral harassment in 2015 and 2016, that she was the subject of several sick leaves for depression in 2017 and reported to her employer. suffering at work, which DOMAXIS SA of HLM did not take into account, replying by letter of September 1, 2017 that she “disagreed against the allegations that Ms. X would be subjected to acts of harassment morale within the company ”, while no investigation had yet been established.

The labor court judge considers that, if DOMAXIS SA d'HLM justifies an investigation by the CHSCT subsequent to the referral to the labor tribunal by the employee, concluding at the end of a series of interviews held on November 22 and December 7, 2017, in the absence of moral harassment, on the grounds that the grievances invoked by Mrs X during her hearing were imprecise, this investigation which confirms the point of view adopted by the employer on September 1, 2017 and contradicts the terms of 'a first investigation by the CHSCT, carried out in 2016, cannot replace the judgment of the industrial tribunal.

Consequently, the prudential judge maintains that it is appropriate to say and judge that Ms. X was the victim of acts of moral harassment.

According to the labor court judge, these facts, which began in 2015 and continued until November 2017, are serious enough to prevent the maintenance of the employment contract, justify the taking of an act by the employee of the termination. of his contract, to the wrongs of the employer.

Consequently, the prudential judge maintains that it should be said and held that the taking of the act produces the effects of a null dismissal.

2.2) On the financial consequences of the rupture

As the act has been taken producing the effects of a null dismissal, Mrs X is entitled to the payment of damages, the amount of which cannot be lower than the salary of the last 6 months.

The prud'homal judge maintains that Ms. X, who had 4 years of seniority at the time of the termination, producing no information on her professional situation subsequent to the dismissal, and acknowledging having found a job a few months later, it is necessary to assess its loss in the sum of 15,000 euros and to order DOMAXIS SA d'HLM to pay this sum, in addition to the sums of:

- 4,092.36 euros for the compensation in lieu of notice

- 409.23 euros for the related paid leave

- 1,550.15 euros for contractual severance pay

With regard to damages for moral harassment, the prudential judge assesses the employee's loss at the sum of 5,000 euros and orders DOMAXIS SA of HLM to pay this sum.

The prudential judge considers that Ms. X, who does not justify a loss distinct from that resulting from moral harassment, will be dismissed of her claim for damages for breach of the safety obligation.

3) On other requests

3.1) On interest

In accordance with the provisions of article 1231-7 of the Civil Code, the labor tribunal affirms that salary sentences will bear interest at the legal rate from the receipt by the employer of the summons to the conciliation office and those to compensatory nature, from the date of this decision.

3.2) On delivery of documents

The prudential judge orders the delivery of an employment center certificate and a work certificate in accordance with this decision.

He specifies that there is no need to impose a periodic penalty payment.

3.3) On other requests

The prudential judge considers that the provisional execution is compatible with the nature of the case and that it should be pronounced.

Indeed, he holds that in order to assert his rights, the plaintiff had to incur costs that it would be unfair to leave to him.

Consequently, he orders the defender to pay him the sum of 1,500 euros under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in addition to costs.

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

Léa Foucaud student lawyer EDAGO

CHHUM AVOCATS LAW OFFICE (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 01/03/21
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 6 mois 2 semaines

From February 25, 2021, the occupational health services can vaccinate certain employees.

Following the recommendation of the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) of February 2, 2021 entitled “Vaccination strategy against Covid-19 - Place du Covid-19 Vaccine Astra Zeneca” (https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-02/strategie_de_vaccination_contre_la_covid-19_-_place_du_covid-19_vaccine_astrazeneca_synthese.pdf), the Directorate General of Labor published on February 16, 2021 a Protocol for vaccination by occupational physicians using the AstraZeneca vaccine ( AZ).

Reminder of the HAS opinion of February 2, 2021

The Directorate General of Labor (DGT) begins by recalling an extract from the HAS opinion of February 2, 2021, recalling that:

"The AZ vaccine is preferentially recommended to professionals in the health or medico-social sector under 65 and to people under 65, starting with people aged 50 to 64 and who present with comorbidities.

These populations correspond to the populations prioritized in phase 3 of the vaccination strategy which also includes 18 - 49 year olds with co-morbidities and the essential operators and professionals in sectors essential to the functioning of the country who must therefore also be vaccinated as soon as the doses are available ”( https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-02/strategie_de_vaccination_contre_la_covid-19_-_place_du_covid-19_vaccine_astrazeneca_synthese.pdf).

Reminder of the list of pathologies presenting risks of co-morbidities

The General Directorate of Labor provides in the appendix the list of pathologies presenting risks of co-morbidities:

o Cardiovascular pathologies: complicated arterial hypertension (hypertension) (with cardiac, renal or vascular complications), history of stroke, history of coronary artery disease, history of cardiac surgery, NYHA stage III or IV heart failure;

o Unbalanced or complicated diabetes;

o Chronic respiratory pathologies liable to decompensate during a viral infection: obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma, pulmonary fibrosis, sleep apnea syndrome, cystic fibrosis in particular;

o Obesity with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30;

o Progressive cancer under treatment (excluding hormone therapy);

o Child Pugh score stage B cirrhosis at least;

o Congenital or acquired immunosuppression;

o Major sickle cell syndrome or history of splenectomy;

o Motor neuron disease, myasthenia gravis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, cerebral palsy, quadriplegia or hemiplegia, primary cerebral malignancy, progressive cerebellar disease;

o Cancers and malignant haematological diseases during treatment with chemotherapy;

o Severe chronic kidney disease, including dialysis patients;

o People with solid organ transplants;

o People transplanted by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation;

o Chronic poly-pathologies with at least two organ failure;

o Certain rare diseases and particularly at risk in the event of infection (list drawn up by the rare diseases health networks);

o Trisomy 21.

Employees aged 50 to 64 with these pathologies are therefore the target audience for this phase of the vaccination campaign.

1) Launch of a new phase of the vaccine strategy

The DGT first recalls that “in accordance with the recommendations of February 2, 2021 from the High Authority for Health (HAS), it was decided that as of February 25, 2021, the AstraZeneca vaccine would be used for the vaccination of people aged 50 to 64 included with co-morbidities ”.

In addition, "the health authorities have decided to make this possibility available to occupational physicians, who will be able to vaccinate volunteer employees from member companies that are part of the aforementioned target".

The DGT asks occupational physicians to respect the recommendations of the health authorities regarding the prioritization of target audiences in the vaccination campaign and to respect the ethical rules applying to any act of vaccination (respect for the consent of the person, medical confidentiality , etc ...)

Indeed, for all medical data collections, screenings or even here vaccination, respect for consent and medical confidentiality remain in place, even in these times of Covid-19.

See our article Collective screening for Covid-19 in a company: how does it work? (https://www.village-justice.com/articles/depistage-collectif-covid-entreprise-comment-marche,37689.html).

2) Particularity of occupational health services (OHS)

The DGT recalls that the participation of occupational health professionals in the vaccination campaign is part of the missions of the Occupational Health Services (OHS) under Article L. 3111-1 of the Public Health Code, article 1 of ordinance n ° 2020-1502 of December 2, 2020 and article R. 4426-6 of the Labor Code.

The Ministry of Labor thus aimed to adapt the OHS obligations in order to enable them to participate in the national strategy to fight the pandemic.

As a result, a "temporary adaptation of the deadlines for carrying out medical visits and examinations by the OHS (order 2021-135 of 10/02/21 and decree 2021-56 of 22/01/21) allows OHS to refocus their activity and adapt them to the health crisis ”.

It is again reminded that if vaccination is recommended, it requires the prior informed consent of the employee, who is voluntary.

Thus, no decision of unfitness can be drawn from the sole refusal of the employee to be vaccinated.

Finally, the instructions of the DGT note that "the occupational physicians practice in a salaried mode of practice inducing the necessary adaptations to the working environment":

- The occupational physician must ensure, in conjunction with the management of the service or the company, that he will have within his OHS the material and human resources suitable for carrying out employee vaccinations;

- Everything must be done to respect the confidentiality of vaccinations vis-à-vis employers. Employees identified as vulnerable cannot be "targeted by means of an individual summons under cover of the company manager, this having the effect of reporting to the employer confidential information concerning the health of the employee in question";

- Vaccination should therefore preferably be considered in the premises of the SST and not in the premises of the company itself;

- Consideration should be given to a global reflection within the ESS regarding vaccinations;

- Finally, in addition to entering vaccinations into the dedicated national information system, the OHS will have to ensure "reliable monitoring of the indicators necessary for monitoring" the vaccination activity.

3) Calendar: 3 stages of the vaccination strategy

The DGT foresees three stages in this phase of the vaccination strategy.

The first step is to identify the doctors who volunteer to vaccinate their patients aged 50 to 64 included with comorbidities.

The second relates to the preparation by volunteer doctors of the appointment slots necessary to administer the AZ vaccine.

Finally, the third step is to collect the vaccine from dispensing pharmacies and start the vaccination.

4) Preparation and injection procedures for the AZ vaccine

It is recalled that "the AZ vaccine requires storage between +2 and + 8 ° C" and that it "is packaged in a 10-dose vial".

5) Organization of appointment slots

The instructions of February 16, 2021 provide for two possible options.

The first option, ie "organizing all vaccinations within 6 hours of removing the vial", requires the doctor to be able to transport and store the vial at room temperature if he or she has organized all of the vaccinations in the same room. within 6 hours of removing the vial.

The second option, ie "the organization of vaccinations over 48 hours after opening the bottle" implies that the doctor can schedule his vaccinations over 48 hours, subject to having a qualified refrigerator controlled at + 2 ° + 8 ° C.

In this case, the doctor will have to ensure that the cold chain is maintained throughout the transport to the doctor's office.

6) Vaccination traceability

The DGT affirms that "the vaccinations carried out are recorded on the Vaccin Covid teleservice system accessible via AmeliPro at the address: http://vaccination-covid.ameli.fr/".

7) Waste disposal

The DGT specifies that "empty vials, syringes and needles follow the traditional route of elimination of ICDT.

If the bottle breaks or is splashed on a surface, it is disinfected using a disinfectant active on adenoviruses ".

8) Post-vaccination surveillance

Finally, it is recommended that occupational physicians place the employee under surveillance for at least 15 minutes after vaccination in order to detect "the occurrence of an anaphylactic reaction following administration of the vaccine".

They will also need "to have the appropriate equipment and pharmaceutical products, including injectable adrenaline".

 

Source:

Protocol for vaccination by occupational physicians using the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine of February 16, 2021 (pdf)

Recommendation of the French National Authority for Health (HAS) of February 2, 2021 entitled "Vaccination strategy against Covid-19 - Place of Covid-19 Vaccine Astra Zeneca"

https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-02/strategie_de_vaccination_contre_la_covid-19_-_place_du_covid-19_vaccine_astrazeneca_synthese.pdf

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 Petrelle 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 01/03/21
Dernier commentaire ajouté il y a 6 mois 2 semaines

A compter du 25 février 2021, les services de santé au travail peuvent vacciner certains salariés.

Suite à la recommandation de la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) du 2 février 2021 intitulée « Stratégie de vaccination contre la Covid-19 – Place du Covid-19 Vaccine Astra Zeneca » [1], la Direction Générale du Travail a publié le 16 février 2021 un Protocole pour la vaccination par les médecins du travail au moyen du vaccin AstraZeneca (AZ).

Rappel de l’avis de la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) du 2 février 2021

La Direction Générale du Travail (DGT) commence par rappeler un extrait de l’avis de la HAS du 2 février 2021 en rappelant que :
« Le vaccin AZ est recommandé préférentiellement aux professionnels du secteur de la santé ou du médico-social de moins de 65 ans et aux personnes de moins de 65 ans, en commençant par les personnes âgées de 50 à 64 ans et qui présentes des comorbidités.

Ces populations correspondent aux populations priorisées en phase 3 de la stratégie vaccinale qui comprend également les 18 – 49 ans avec comorbidités et les opérateurs essentiels et professionnels des secteurs essentiels au fonctionnement du pays qui devront donc également être vaccinés dès que les doses seront disponibles » [2].

Rappel de la liste des pathologies présentant des risques de comorbidités

La Direction Générale du Travail prévoit en annexe la liste des pathologies présentant des risques de comorbidités :
 Pathologies cardio-vasculaires : hypertension artérielle (HTA) compliquée (avec complications cardiaques, rénales ou vasculo-cérébrales), antécédent d’accident vasculaire cérébral, antécédent de coronaropathie, antécédent de chirurgie cardiaque, insuffisance cardiaque stade NYHA III ou IV ;
. Diabète non équilibré ou compliqué ;
. Pathologies respiratoires chroniques susceptibles de décompenser lors d’une infection virale : broncho pneumopathie obstructive, asthme sévère, fibrose pulmonaire, syndrome d’apnées du sommeil, mucoviscidose notamment ;
. Obésité avec indice de masse corporelle (IMC) ≥ 30 ;
. Cancer évolutif sous traitement (hors hormonothérapie) ;
. Cirrhose au stade B du score de Child Pugh au moins ;
. Immunodépression congénitale ou acquise ;
. Syndrome drépanocytaire majeur ou antécédent de splénectomie ;
. Maladies du motoneurone, myasthénie grave, sclérose en plaques, maladie de Parkinson, paralysie cérébrale, quadriplégie ou hémiplégie, tumeur maligne primitive cérébrale, maladie cérébelleuse progressive ;
. Cancers et maladies hématologiques malignes en cours de traitement par chimiothérapie ;
. Maladies rénales chroniques sévères, dont les patients dialysés ;
. Personnes transplantées d’organes solides ;
. Personnes transplantées par allogreffe de cellules souches hématopoïétiques ;
. Poly-pathologies chroniques et présentant au moins deux insuffisances d’organes ;
. Certaines maladies rares et particulièrement à risque en cas d’infection (liste établie par les filières de santé des maladies rares) ;
. Trisomie 21.

Les salariés de 50 à 64 ans atteints de ces pathologies sont ainsi le public ciblé par cette phase de la campagne de vaccination.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/covid-vaccination-entreprise-par-les-medecins-travail-comment-marche,38297.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=RSS

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

Annaelle ZERBIB juriste DPRT Paris Saclay

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