Par frederic.chhum le 11/11/19

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

The parties may appeal the order.

1) Reminder of the facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1) In law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2) In this particular case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

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

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

 

 

Par frederic.chhum le 29/09/19

Should the industrial tribunal convictions be understood in gross or net when the judgment does not specify anything? This is the question to be answered by the Court of Cassation.

In a decision of July 3rd 2019 (No. 18-12149) published in the Bulletin, the Court of Cassation states that when "the decision on which the prosecution was based did not decide on the attribution of social contributions and social contributions", the employer must proceed to the prepayment of the contributions and social contributions owed by the employee on the sentence pronounced.

1) Background

Sums of a wage nature are subject to social security contributions. As a result, before they are paid to the employee, the employer must deduct the compulsory contributions and social contributions.

Conversely, those of a compensatory nature are exempt from social contributions within the limits provided for in Article L.242-1 of the Social Security Code.

This difference of nature may raise a difficulty at the time of the execution of a labor tribunal conviction.

Indeed, in the absence of precision in the judgment, the question arises as to whether the sentence is expressed in gross or in net.

On this point, in a decision of 19 May 2004, the Court of Cassation had held that in the absence of an express provision in the appeal judgment on the possibility of deducting from social security contributions the amount of the sentence, the conviction was in favor of the employee (Cass Soc 19 May 2004, No. 02-42447).

Nevertheless, in the decisions of 19 May 2016 and 16 May 2018, the Court of Cassation considered that if the judge had not pronounced expressly on the attribution of the social contributions, the sentence was necessarily expressed in gross (Cass. May 19, 2016, No. 15-10954 and Cass., May 16, 2018, No. 16-26448).

2) Facts and procedure

In this case, an employee is hired by a company in 2000. She is dismissed thirteen years later and files suit with the labour tribunal.

By a decision of March 30, 2016 of the labor court, the company is condemned to pay him various sums:

- As a reminder of overtime and related paid vacation;

- As compensation for dismissal without cause real and serious.

The company pays the employee a sum corresponding to the convictions handed down after deduction of the compulsory social contributions.

The employee has a command issued and an attachment is made to the employer's bank account.

The latter then seized a judge of the execution of a dispute tending to see that the conviction amounted to a gross sum.

An appeal is lodged by the employer who wishes to have the order to pay null and terminate the seizure.

To dismiss his claims, in a judgment of December 14, 2017, the Court of Appeal retained that:

- The employee has made a request for a conviction in net and not in gross and that the labor court has been seized of such a request;

- That no provision requires a court to pronounce all convictions on the same basis, all in net or all in gross.

Thus, the Court of Appeal of Paris considered that by granting right without further details to the request of the employee, the industrial tribunal, which did not dismiss the claim of the employee who wished to obtain a net indemnity, pronounced a clear sentence.

The company has appealed in cassation.

3) Solution and analysis

On the approval of Articles R. 121-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures and Article 1351 of the Civil Code as drafted prior to the order of 10 February 2016, the Court of Cassation breaks the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

She asserts that the Paris Court of Appeal, which "found that the decision on which the prosecution was based did not decide on the attribution of contributions and social contributions", has, under the guise of interpretation, modified the decision submitted to him.

It concludes that in the absence of details on the attribution of social charges "the employer had to proceed to the prepayment of sums due by the employee on the sentence pronounced".

This decision is a confirmation of case law that allows for a necessary clarification.

Sources

c. cass. July 3rd 2019, n°18-12149

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000038762759&fastReqId=348708199&fastPos=1

                                     

Article L.242-1 du Code de la sécurité sociale :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000037074487&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006073189&dateTexte=20180901

Cass. Soc. May 19th 2004, n°02-42447 :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000007484478

Cass. Soc. May 19th, 2016, n°15-10954 :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000032559846

Cass. Soc. May 16th, 2018, n°16-26448 :

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000036947268&fastReqId=29990986&fastPos=1

 

Frédéric CHHUM, lawyer and member of the Paris Bar Council (conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

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

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

 

Par frederic.chhum le 27/09/18

Cet arrêt illustre qu’il ne faut pas employer en auto entreprise une personne qui était précédemment employée comme salariée pour les mêmes taches et dans la même entreprise avec un lien de subordination.

M. X... a été engagé le 1er septembre 2008 par la société Centre abattoirs Romans bouchers éleveurs Chevilla (la société Carbec) en qualité d'abatteur.

Il a démissionné le 31 mars 2009 et a poursuivi son activité professionnelle dans l'entreprise en qualité d'auto-entrepreneur.

La Cour d’appel de Grenoble a débouté le salarié de sa demande de requalification du contrat de sous traitance en contrat de travail.

Dans son arrêt du 22 mars 2018, n°16-28641, la Cour de cassation casse l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Grenoble.

Elle relève que « pour débouter M. X... de ses demandes de requalification du contrat de sous traitance en contrat de travail, et de ses demandes de rappels de salaires, d'indemnités de rupture, et de dommages-intérêts pour licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse, l'arrêt retient que l'existence de fiches de pointage n'implique pas nécessairement un lien de subordination, que les factures démontrent la grande variation d'heures effectuées d'un mois sur l'autre, que le fait que l'intervention de l'intéressé se soit insérée dans une chaîne d'abattage, si elle caractérise une interdépendance, ne suffit pas en soi à caractériser la subordination qu'il allègue, et que la société déduit légitimement des factures la probabilité que l'intéressé ait eu d'autres clients ».

Au visa des articles 1134 du code civil dans sa rédaction applicable en la cause, et L. 1221-1 du code du travail, la Cour de cassation affirme que, "par des motifs en partie inopérants, alors qu'il résultait de ses constatations que M. X... avait poursuivi son activité pour la même entreprise, dans les locaux de celle-ci, sur sa chaîne d'abattage, en utilisant la pointeuse de cette dernière, ce dont il se déduisait qu'il travaillait sous la direction et le contrôle de celle-ci, la cour d'appel, qui n'a pas tiré les conséquences légales de ses constatations, a violé les textes susvisés".

Elle renvoie l’affaire devant la Cour d’appel de Chambery.

Cet arrêt doit être approuvé.

Cass. soc. 22 mars 2018, n°16-28641

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000036779723&fastReqId=7429909&fastPos=10

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

.Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
.Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

E-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog: www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

 

 

 

Par frederic.chhum le 26/09/18

In a decision of September 12th 2018 (n°16-11690), the Court of Cassation confirmed that a dismissal for serious ground (faute grave) notified to an employee who denigrated its employer on a closed Facebook group (groupe Facebook fermé) is unfair (sans cause).

The Court of Cassation considered that the impugned remarks were not a gross misconduct as they had been broadcast to a restricted circle of 14 people and that these remarks were in fact of a private nature.

I. The facts

Ms. Y, an employee of the Agence du Palais, managed by Ms. X ..., was hired on January 6th, 2004 as a real estate negotiator (négociatrice immobilière) by the Dupain company.

On 3rd March 2009, she was dismissed for gross misconduct (faute grave) on the grounds that she had made insulting and humiliating remarks against her employer.

The employee had joined a group on Facebook, called "Extermination of the leaders" (Extermination des directrices chieuses).

This Facebook group was closed (fermé) and accessible only to 14 people.

The employee appealed to Labour tribunal (Conseil de prud’hommes) to challenge her dismissal.

The Paris Court of Appeal considered that the dismissal was without real and serious cause.

The company went to cassation.

In the decision of  September12th, 2018 (n°16-11690), the Court of Cassation confirmed the Court of Appeal's decision on the unfair dismissal.

II. The solution of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation considers that dismissal for gross misconduct is without cause real and serious as the disputed remarks had been circulated to a small circle (14 people) and they had a private character.

The Court of cassation states that "after having found that the disputed remarks had been broadcast on the account opened by the employee on the Facebook network and that they had been accessible only to people approved by the latter and few, namely a closed group of 14 people, so that they were part of a conversation of a private nature, the Court of Appeal was able to hold that these remarks did not characterize a gross misconduct "; "That exercising the power it has under Article L. 1235-1 of the Labour Code, it decided that the grievance did not constitute a real and serious cause for dismissal".

III. What to think about such decision - Employees: set your Facebook account on confidential!

Employees, Facebook users must make sure to restrict the delivery of their messages by using a privacy setting.

Otherwise, they are exposed to the fact that their comments on Facebook, are used by their employer to justify a dismissal.

In a decision of March 24th, 2014, the Lyon Court of Appeal considered as a real and serious cause the abusive remarks of an employee on a Facebook wall with free access.

Similarly, if a disputed message has not been broadcast in a private sphere of exchanges because the employee has many friends, dismissal (for offensive language) could be validated.

Even if the context is completely different, we must reconcile the decision of September 12th, 2018 of the decision of December 20th, 2017, n° 16-19609 under which an employer had been convicted for violation of the private life for having used a Facebook publication of an employee before the Labour tribunal.

Read on this article: Salariés, cadres, cadres dirigeants : attention au paramétrage de votre compte Facebook (Cass. soc. 20 décembre 2017 n° 16-19609).

The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal had in fact dismissed the minutes of a bailiff's report which contained information extracted from an employee's Facebook account obtained from another employee's mobile phone.

In this case, the employer questioned the depressive state of which an employee was reporting by producing a bailiff's report (procès-verbal d’huissier) which reported information from her Facebook account to which the employer did not have authorized access and whose knew about the mobile phone of another employee.

Confirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Cassation stated that "the report of bailiff's report drawn up on March 28th , 2012 at the request of the company reported information extracted from the employee's Facebook account obtained from the mobile phone of another employee, information reserved to authorized persons ", the Court of Appeal was able to deduce that the employer could not access it without bringing disproportionate and unfair damage to the privacy of the employee" .

 

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

.Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
.Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

E-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog: www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

Par frederic.chhum le 20/09/18

The capping (le plafonnement) of the dismissal indemnities for unfair dismissal (licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse) has restricted the amount of sums that an employee can obtain before the Conseil de prud’hommes after being dismissed (see our previous article " Macron orders: what changes for employees with the capping of industrial tribunal severance pay ").

Strongly disparaged, such capping has been validated by the Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) (decision n ° 2018-761 of March 21st, 2018) and applies to all dismissals pronounced since September 24th, 2017.

There are, however, several ways to escape its application.

1) Cases of exclusion from the Macron scale of industrial tribunal allowances

First of all, the French labour Code itself provides for several hypothesis that capping (plafonnement) is excluded (see our previous article "Employees, executives, top executives: 4 tips to avoid the ceiling on industrial tribunals provided for by the Ordinance". Macron ")

Then, apart from these exhaustively enumerated hypotheses, it is possible to get the Labour Court to dismiss the application of the scale because of its opposition to international standards which are hierarchically superior to it.

Indeed, serious doubts remain as to the conformity of such provisions with several international standards.

2) The possibility for the Conseil de Prud’hommes to exclude the application of the Macron scale because of its unconventionality

It falls within the power of the Labour Court (Conseil de prud’hommes) to dismiss the application of the provisions of the labour Code that it considers unconventional, i.e contrary to international law.

In fact, each legal standard must be compatible with all the rules that are superior to it in the hierarchy of standards.

More specifically, with respect to the rules of international law, Article 55 of the French Constitution provides that: "Treaties or agreements regularly ratified or approved have, since their publication, an authority superior to that of the laws ..."

The French judge may therefore be led, during the examination of a dispute, to exclude the French law to make prevail the international convention in the resolution of the dispute.

This possibility has, moreover, been implemented by a labour tribunal in the context of the disputes concerning the new hiring contract (CNE), which is considered to be contrary to Convention n°158 of the International labour Organization (ILO). (See, in particular, the Longjumeau Conseil de prud’hommes, April 28th, 2006, De Wee v. Philippe Samzun, No. 06/00316, Paris Court of Appeal, 18th E, July 6th, 2007, No. S06 / 06992).

However, the scale provided for in Article L.1235-3 of French labour Code is in contradiction with several international standards.

2.1) The contradiction of the Macron scale (Bareme Macron) of Article L. 1235-3 of the labour Code with Article 10 of ILO Convention n°158

In order of the Conseil de prud’hommes to set aside the application of the scale of industrial tribunal indemnities enacted by Article L. 1235-3 of French labour Code, it is first of all possible to maintain that this scale (barème) is contrary to Article 10 of ILO Convention n°158.

In fact, Article 10 of ILO Convention n°158, which deals with dismissal, provides that judges who make a finding must "be entitled to order the payment of adequate compensation or any other form of reparation regarded as appropriate” (principe de réparation appropriée).

The existence of a ceiling (barème) on the compensation awarded in the event of unfair dismissal / without real and serious cause would therefore be contrary to such principle of appropriate compensation.

However, this Convention was ratified by France on March 16th 1989 and the Council of State confirmed that its provisions had direct effect (EC Sect., 19 October 2005, CGT et al., No. 283471).

2.2) The contrariety of the Macron scale (barème Macron) of Article L. 1235-3 of the labour Code with Article 24 of the European Social Charter (Charte Sociale Européenne)

Secondly, the icon veniality of the scale of industrial tribunal allowances may be sought in the light of Article 24 of the European Social Charter of May 3rd 1996, ratified by France on May 7th 1999, the direct effect of which has also been recognized by the Council of State. (EC, February 10, 2014, M. Fischer, No. 359892).

Article 24 states that:

“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right of workers to protection in cases of termination of employment, the Parties undertake to recognise:

a. the right of all workers not to have their employment terminated without valid reasons for such termination connected with their capacity or conduct or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service;

b. the right of workers whose employment is terminated without a valid reason to adequate compensation or other appropriate relief.

To this end, the Parties undertake to ensure that a worker who considers that its employment has been terminated without a valid reason shall have the right to appeal to an impartial body.”

In this respect, the European Committee of Social Rights has stated that an appropriate compensation entails "the reimbursement of financial losses incurred between the date of dismissal and the decision of the body of appeal, the possibility of reinstatement and the compensation of an amount high enough to deter the employer and to compensate for the harm suffered by the victim ". (Decision of September 8th 2016, Finish Society of Social Rights v. Finland, No. 106/2014)

However, the European Committee of Social Rights took care to specify, in this decision of September 8th, 2016, that "any cap that would have the effect that the awards granted are not related to the damage suffered and are not sufficiently dissuasive is in principle contrary to the Charter ".

The committee thus censored the Finnish law (loi finlandaise) which provided that the judge fixed compensation for unjustified dismissal on the basis of seniority, the age of the employee, its prospects of finding an equivalent job, the duration of his inactivity, and the general situation of the employee and the employer but with a floor of 3 months’ salary and a ceiling of 24 months.

Especially, it is therefore possible to argue that the scale set by Article L.1235-3 of French labour Code and which provides for a ceiling still lower (1 to 20 months depending on seniority), is contrary to Article 24 of the European Social Charter as interpreted by the European Committee of Social Rights.

In addition, for employees with less seniority, the amount of the ceiling allowance is so low that the dissuasive purpose it is intended to fulfil under Article 24 of the Charter is reduced to nothing.

It is therefore perfectly legitimate to argue that the scale of Article L. 1235-3 of the labour Code infringes Article 24 of the European Social Charter in two respects.

***

As far as we know, there is still no decision of a Labour Court that has rejected the scale because of its contrariety to international standards.

However, it is the responsibility of all the defenders of the employees to raise this unconventionality in a systematic way in the hope of obtaining industrial tribunal judges an invalidation of this scale which drastically limits the compensation of unfair dismissals / without real cause and serious

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

.Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
.Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

E-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog: www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

 

 

 

 

Par frederic.chhum le 18/09/18

Dans son arrêt du 12 septembre 2018, la Cour d’appel de Paris :

. Juge que la requalification des contrats à durée déterminée en contrat à durée indéterminée est à temps plein à compter du 1er décembre 2013 ;

. Condamne la société France Télévisions à payer à M. X les sommes de :

  • 40.205,68 € de rappel de salaire pour la période du 1er décembre 2013 au 30 septembre 2016,
  • 4.020,56 € de congés payés afférents,
  • 42.955,96 € de rappel de salaire pour la période du 30 septembre 2016 au 18 juin 2018,
  • 4.295,59 € de congés payés afférents,
  • 8.596 € de rappel de prime d’ancienneté,
  • 859,60 € de congés payés afférents,
  • 887,84 € de rappel de congés payés sur la prime d’ancienneté du 1er janvier 2013 au 30 septembre 2016,
  • 1.042,80 € de supplément familial,

. Confirme le jugement du 9 septembre 2016 sauf en ce qu’il condamne la société France Télévisions à M. X les sommes de 17 192 € de rappel de prime d’ancienneté et 2.919,84€ de rappel de supplément familial et en ce qu’il rejette la demande de M. X de rappel de salaire.

L’intérêt de cet arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Paris (Pole 6 Chambre 4) du 12 septembre 2018 (RG 16/12201) est que le réalisateur de Bandes Annonces, intermittent du spectacle au sein de France Télévisions, obtient la requalification de ces CDD en CDI à temps complet avec rappel de salaires pendant les périodes intercalaires / interstitielles.

Au total, le réalisateur de Bandes Annonces de France Télévisions obtient 127.000 euros bruts.

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

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

. Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
. Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog : www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

 

Par frederic.chhum le 12/09/18

To read the articles, click on the link under the article.

***

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes) defends employees, executives, artists, entertainment professionals (intermittents du spectacle), whistle blowers, journalists, freelancers, executives.

1) Is a salaried director (Directeur) necessarily a senior executive (cadre dirigeant) ?

https://www.legavox.fr/blog/frederic-chhum-avocats/directeur-salarie-necessairement-cadre-dirigeant-23069.htm

2) False senior executive (Faux cadre dirigeant) : How to get paid for your overtime before the prud’hommes ?

https://www.cadre-dirigeant-magazine.com/reussir-en-entreprise/faux-cadre-dirigeant-vous-pouvez-obtenir-le-paiement-de-vos-heures-supplementaires/

3) Employees' senior executives (cadre dirigeant): cancel your senior executive status and get paid for your overtime

https://consultation.avocat.fr/blog/frederic-chhum/article-12719-cadres-dirigeants-salaries-faites-annuler-votre-statut-de-cadre-dirigeant-et-obtenez-le-paiement-de- your hour-extra-Chhum lawyers-launcher-a-action conjointe.html

4) Do you speak rights of senior executives (cadre dirigeant) ?

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/speak-cadre-dirigeant-Frederic-Chhum,8959.html

5) An employee, senior executive officer (cadre dirigeant) of a consulting company obtains 132,000 euros for unfair dismissal before the Boulogne-Billancourt prud’hommes

https://www.chhum-avocats.fr/publications/un-salarie-cadre-dirigeant-dune-societe-de-conseil-obtient-132000-euros-pour-licenciement-abusif-aux-prudhommes

6) Right of senior executives (cadres Dirigeants): overview of case law (jurisprudence) 2016/2017.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/Droit-des-cadres-dirigeants-panorama-jurisprudence-2016-2017,25525.html

7) Executives (cadres), senior executives (cadres Dirigeants) : 10 tips from CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes) before negotiating your conventional termination (rupture conventionnelle) !

http://www.lagbd.org/index.php/Salari%C3%A9s,_Cadres_:_10_conseils_d%E2%80%99un_avocat_avant_de_n%C3%A9gocier_votre_rupture_conventionnelle_(fr)

8) A designer from an international luxury group (Tod's) is not a senior executive (cadre dirigeant) and got paid for her overtime hours

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/Une-Styliste-Senior-groupe-international-luxe-est-pas-cadre-dirigeant-peut,25095.html

9) "False" senior executives (faux cadre dirigeant): a hotel manager obtains the nullity of his senior management status and 105000 euros of overtime before the Conseil de prud’hommes

En savoir plus sur https://www.village-justice.com/articles/faux-cadres-dirigeants-directeur-hotel-obtient-nullite-son-statut-cadre,26584.html#ufXlDgFa1MFF621I.99

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

.Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
.Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

E-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog: www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

 

 

Par frederic.chhum le 06/09/18

In a decision of June 27th , 2018 (Cass Soc., June 27th , 2018, n° 16-28515), the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court adopted a particularly harsh position with regard to companies that practice systematic renewal of trial periods (période d’essai).

Indeed, the Social Chamber considered that the termination of the trial period of an employee should produce the effects of a unfair dismissal (licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse) since the renewal of it had not been justified by the need to assess the employee's professional skills but resulted from a policy of automatic renewal of trial periods by the employer.

Although it is quite severe on employers, this decision is very favourable for employees and paves the way for a strong litigation (contentieux), relating to breaks in the trial period (ruptures de période d’essai).

I) Facts and procedure.

In the case submitted to her, she was employed as an officer (chargé de mission) whose trial period had been renewed with her express agreement and then terminated at the initiative of the employer.

The employee, who requested that the termination of her trial period produces the effects of a unfair dismissal because of the improper nature of the renewal of which she had been the subject, had won her case before the Court of Appeal.

The company had therefore appealed in cassation.

II) Reminders on the trial period and its renewal.

Recall that the trial period is defined by Article L. 1221-20 of the Labour Code which attaches a specific purpose: "The trial period allows the employer to assess the skills of the employee in his work, especially in view of his experience, and the employee to assess whether the positions occupied fit him./her »

It can only be renewed once provided that this possibility of renewal is provided for by the extended branch collective agreement applicable to the company and expressly indicated in the letter of engagement or the employment contract.

In addition, the renewal must be expressly accepted by the employee before the end of the initial trial period.

Above all, renewal must be justified in the light of the purpose of the Labour Code in the trial period.

III) Thesis (theses) of the parties.

To justify the renewal, the company argued, in support of its appeal, that the employee was employed in a technical job and that she was one of the employees with the highest level of qualification in the company so that the renewal was necessary to ensure his suitability for his position.

Conversely, the employee showed that the renewal of her trial period was not the result of any need to continue her evaluation but only of a systematic practice of the company.

In support of this assertion, the employee was giving two emails in which company executives made specific reference to this systematic practice and showed that seven other colleagues had also had their trial period renewed without objective justification.

IV) Solution.

Based on the elements reported by the employee, the Court of Appeal had ruled that the renewal by the company did not meet the purpose of the trial period.

She then drew all the classic legal consequences: since the renewal was not valid, the employee was on a permanent contract and the breakdown therefore amounted to a dismissal necessarily deprived of any real and serious cause giving entitlement to the indemnities (compensatory indemnity of notice [Indemnité compensatrice de préavis] severance pay [indemnité de licenciement], damages for unfair dismissal) [indemnité pour licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse].

The Supreme Court fully validated the decision of the Court of Appeal and therefore dismissed the appeal brought by the company.

V) What to remember from this decision.

The Supreme Court ruled that "the Court of Appeal noted, by a sovereign appreciation of the facts and evidence submitted for its examination, out any distortion, the renewal of the trial period of the employee does not had not intended to assess his powers and had been diverted from his purpose, and thus legally justified his decision.”

This decision, although not published in the Bulletin of the Court of Cassation, deserves to be underlined since it can have serious consequences for companies that have the habit of automatically renewing the trial periods without being able to justify the need to additional time to assess the ability of the employee concerned to occupy the workstation for which he was hired.

An employee whose trial period has been improperly renewed before being terminated may in fact avail himself of this case law to claim all the indemnities due in the event of dismissal without real and serious cause (compensatory indemnity of notice, indemnity of dismissal, indemnity for dismissal without real and serious cause).

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

. Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
. Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog : www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

Par frederic.chhum le 05/09/18

La Cour de cassation a affirmé que la rupture de la période d’essai d’une salariée devait produire les effets d’un licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse dès lors que le renouvellement de celle-ci n’avait pas été justifié par la nécessité d’apprécier les compétences professionnelles de la salariée mais résultait d’une politique de renouvellement automatique des périodes d’essai par l’employeur (Cass. Soc., 27 juin 2018, n°16-28.515).
 

Cet arrêt, bien que non publié au bulletin des arrêts de la Cour de cassation, doit être souligné puisqu’il peut se révéler lourd de conséquences pour les entreprises qui ont pour habitude de renouveler automatiquement les périodes d’essai sans pour autant être en mesure de justifier avoir besoin de temps supplémentaire pour apprécier la capacité du salarié concerné à occuper l’emploi pour lequel il a été embauché.

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

En savoir plus sur https://www.village-justice.com/articles/periode-essai-licenciement-sans-cause-reelle-serieuse-cas-renouvellement,29344.html#wsi7M5wPIFL4dCQK.99

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

. Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
. Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog : www.chhum-avocats.fr

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

 

 

Par frederic.chhum le 04/09/18

Dans un arrêt du 14 décembre 2016, la Cour d’appel de Montpellier a condamné la société à payer au salarié de lui payer une certaine somme de 60.688 euros à titre de rappel d’indemnité d’astreinte.

La société s’est pourvue en cassation.

Toutefois, dans l’arrêt du 12 juillet 2018 (n°17-13029 en pdf ci-dessous), la Cour de cassation rejette le pourvoi de la société.

La Cour de cassation affirme « qu’ayant relevé qu’en application d’un document intitulé “procédure de gestion des appels d’urgence”, les coordonnées des directeurs d’agence étaient communiquées à la société en charge des appels d’urgence et que ces directeurs d’agence devaient en cas d’appel prendre les mesures adéquates, et qu’à partir du moment où le salarié a été promu directeur d’agence, sans être à la disposition permanente et immédiate de l’employeur, il avait l’obligation de rester en permanence disponible à l’aide de son téléphone portable pour répondre à d’éventuels besoins et se tenir prêt à intervenir en cas de besoin, la cour d’appel a légalement justifié sa décision ».

Cette jurisprudence doit être approuvée et est conforme à la jurisprudence constante.

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

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/astreintes-salarie-obtient-688-euros-car-devait-rester-disponible-permanence,29318.html

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocats à la Cour (Paris et Nantes)

. Paris : 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris - Tel: 01 42 56 03 00 ou 01 42 89 24 48
. Nantes : 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes -  Tel: 02 28 44 26 44

e-mail : chhum@chhum-avocats.com

Blog : www.chhum-avocats.fr

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