Par frederic.chhum le 23/07/18

In case of dismissal following an internal investigation (enquête interne) in a company, the judge, seized of a challenge of its dismissal by an employee, cannot base its decision solely or decisively on anonymous testimony (temoignages anonymes).

To our knowledge, the decision of the Cour of cassation July 4th 2018 is unseen.

This judgment must be approved because it strengthens employees' rights of defence in case of dismissal following an internal investigation (enquête interne).

1) Facts

Mr. X  was hired on March 1st, 2007 as an expert building buyer by SNCF mobilités.

On February 4th and 5th, 2013, the employee and Ms. Z ... approached SNCF's ethics department.

Following an internal investigation, the company notified the employee on September 18th, 2013 a suspension measure and summoned him to the Disciplinary Board.

He was dismissed on September 25th, 2013 for fault.

The employee was reproached for making racist remarks about a colleague of Muslim religion and insulting remarks about his hierarchy.

2) In case of an internal investigation, the judge cannot base his decision solely or decisively on anonymous testimony.

With regard to Article 6 §1 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in its decision of July 4th 2018, the Court of Cassation states that "the judge cannot base its decision solely on or in a decisive way on anonymous testimonies ".

Article 6 §1 of the ECHR provides that:

«In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. ".

Article 6 §3 of the ECHR provides that

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

a) To be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

c) To defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

d) To examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

e) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.”

The Court of Cassation breaks the decision of the Rennes Court of Appeal which considered that the dismissal procedure is regular and the dismissal justified, having retained that "the infringement of the rights of the defense based on the anonymous character of the testimonials collected by the Ethic Committee is not justified to the extent that the employee had the opportunity to read and comment on them, relied decisively on the report of the Ethic Committee”.

The Court of Cassation breaks and annuls the decision of the Rennes Court of Appeal of March 17th 2017 in that it denied the employee's claim for damages for dismissal without cause real and serious ground.

The case is sent to the Angers Court of Appeal.

3) Contribution of the judgment of 4 July 2018.

In case of a dismissal, if a company conducts an internal investigation (enquête interne), employees who testify must be identifiable.

Otherwise, the dismissal may be invalidated because the evidence may be removed from the proceedings by the judge because of their anonymity.

In any case, the judge cannot base its decision solely or decisively on anonymous testimony.

This decision should be welcomed, which strengthens employees' rights of defense in the event of dismissal following an internal investigation (enquête interne).

Source:  Legifrance

·  c. cass. 4 juillet 2018, n° 17-18.241 (M. X c/ établissement SNCF mobilités).

·  Convention de sauvegarde des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés fondamentales telle qu’amendée par les Protocoles n° 11 et n° 14.
 

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 21/07/18

En juillet 2018, environ 55 entreprises avaient eu recours à la Rupture Conventionnelle Collective (RCC) (Données Ministère du travail).

Le Cabinet d’avocats CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes) a publié 5 brèves sur la Rupture conventionnelle Collective.

Les brèves publiées par CHHUM AVOCATS sur la rupture conventionnelle collective concernent notamment le régime juridique de la RCC, le régime fiscal, les différences RC et RCC en matière fiscal et la mise en place de la RCC dans les entreprises de moins de 50 salariés.

Enfin, CHHUM AVOCATS propose un modèle inédit de Rupture Conventionnelle Collective (RCC) à destination des syndicats et entreprise.

Pour lire ou relire nos brèves, cliquez sur les liens ci-dessous.

1) Rupture conventionnelle collective (RCC) : modèle d’accord collectif pour les entreprises et syndicats par Frédéric CHHUM et Marilou OLLIVIER

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-collective-rcc-modele-accord-collectif-pour-les,27067.html

2) Rupture conventionnelle collective (RCC) : comment ça marche ? par Frédéric CHHUM

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-collective-rcc-mode-emploi-ord-2017-decrets-2017,26801.html

3) Rupture conventionnelle collective : comment la mettre en place dans les entreprises de moins de 50 salariés par Frédéric CHHUM et Marilou OLLIVIER

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/comment-mettre-place-une-rupture-conventionnelle-collective-rcc-dans-les,28475.html

4) Rupture conventionnelle collective (RCC) : le jackpot fiscal pour les salariés ! (Merci Macron) par Frédéric CHHUM et Marilou OLLIVIER

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-collective-jackpot-fiscal-pour-les-salaries-merci,26896.html

5) Rupture conventionnelle collective ou individuel : quelles différences en matière de fiscalité par Frédéric CHHUM et Marilou OLLIVIER

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/rupture-conventionnelle-individuelle-collective-quelles-differences-termes,27951.html

N’hésitez pas à nous contacter pour toute information complémentaire.

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 17/07/18

Au visa de l’article 6 §1 et §3 de la CEDH, dans son arrêt du 4 juillet 2018 (n°17-18241), la Cour de cassation affirme que « le juge ne peut fonder sa décision uniquement ou de manière déterminante sur des témoignages anonymes ».

M. X... a été engagé le 1er mars 2007 en qualité d’acheteur expert bâtiment par la SNCF mobilités. Les 4 et 5 février 2013, le salarié et Mme Z... ont saisi la direction éthique de la SNCF.

Suite à une enquête interne, la société a notifié au salarié le 18 septembre 2013 une mesure de suspension et l’a convoqué devant le conseil de discipline ; il a été licencié le 25 septembre 2013 pour faute et notamment pour des propos à connotation raciste à l’égard d’un collègue de religion musulmane et des propos insultants à l’égard de sa hiérarchie.

Le salarié a ensuite saisi le conseil de prud'hommes.

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

En savoir plus sur https://www.village-justice.com/articles/licenciement-suite-une-enquete-interne-juge-peut-fonder-decision-uniquement,29031.html#861mIxdUgRCxT0R7.99

Source : Legifrance et CEDH

·  c. cass. 4 juillet 2018, n° 17-18.241 (M. X c/ établissement SNCF mobilités).

·  Arrêt de la CEDH.
 

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 15/07/18

Au visa  de l'article L. 1231-1 du code du travail, la Cour de cassation, dans un arrêt du 30 mai 2018, affirme que  « l'écrit par lequel le salarié prend acte de la rupture du contrat de travail en raison de faits qu'il reproche à son employeur ne fixe pas les limites du litige ».

Il faut approuver cette décision.

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

https://www.legavox.fr/blog/frederic-chhum-avocats/prise-acte-lettre-prise-acte-25421.htm

Source

Article L. 1231-1 du code du travail

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&idArticle=LEGIARTI000019071194

c. cass. 30 mai 2018, n° 17-11082

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000037043178&fastReqId=1036996565&fastPos=9

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 09/07/18

In July and August 2018 (summer 2018), to satisfy its clients, CHHUM AVOCATS law office ensures a legal and judicial advice, in labour law (negotiation of rupture conventionnelle, unfair dismissal, judicial termination, prise d’acte de rupture, transaction, moral or sexual harassment, burn out, requalification of a fixed-term contract, referral to the labour tribunal and speed procedure, etc.),

An avocat from CHHUM AVOCATS law office will receive you quickly, by appointment, in July and August 2018, for an advice or litigation.

***

CHHUM AVOCATS Law office is a labour law firm based in Paris and Nantes.

It employs 5 lawyers (4 lawyers / avocats in Paris and 1 lawyer/ avocat in Nantes).

CHHUM AVOCATS defends employees (salaries), intermittent workers (intermittents du spectacle), journalists, executives (cadres), senior executives (cadres Dirigeants), expatriate employees (expatriés), and workers’ councils (comités d’enteprise), CSE, unions (syndicats), CHSCT.

CHHUM AVOCATS pleads daily throughout France before the Labour Tribunal (conseil de prud'hommes), the High Court, the Criminal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.

Do not hesitate to contact us.

Best,

Frédéric CHHUM

 Frédéric CHHUM, Avocat 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 : http://www.chhum-avocats.fr/

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

Par frederic.chhum le 08/07/18

Polyclinic X .hired Mr. Y .effective January 21, 2013 as Human Resources Director.

The employment contract sets forth a flat rate agreement package (forfait jours), which was reiterated by an amendment of July 1st 2015, following the conclusion on May 23rd 2014 of a company agreement providing for such agreements.

After being dismissed, the employee filed a complaint before the Conseil de prud’hommes’ speed procedure (référé) to a provision for overtime.

By decision of 2 December 2016, the RIOM Court of Appeal ordered the company to pay such provision for overtime for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015.

The company challenged the decision to the “Court of cassation”.

In a decision of May 9th, 2018, the Court of Cassation dismissed the company's appeal.

It notes that : “that having noted that the national agreement of 27 January 2000 on the reduction of working time, applicable to the branch of private hospitalization, referred to agreements of enterprise or establishment for the establishment of a flat rate agreement and found that such an agreement was only concluded on 23 May 2014, which meant that the employer could not avail itself of the flat rate agreement included in the employment contract of 21 January 2013, in the absence of a prior collective agreement providing for it, the Court of Appeal, for these reasons alone, could hold that the obligation to pay overtime was not seriously questionable " .

The Court of Cassation concludes that "it is in the exercise of the powers which it holds of the article R. 1455-7 of French labour code that the court of appeal, which did not have to proceed to other research, has fixed the amount of the provision as the amount it has chosen.”

Observations

It should be remembered that the annual fixed rates in days are set up by a company or site collective agreement of or, failing that, by a branch agreement.

Failing this, no annual flat-rate agreement in days can be validly concluded, even with the express agreement of the employee concerned.

Legifrance

C. cass. May 9th 2018 16-26910

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000036930179&fastReqId=1527914741&fastPos=1

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 29/06/18

Dans un arrêt du 21 juin 2018, la Cour d’appel de Paris (Pole 6, chambre 2) considère que la prise d’acte de rupture du contrat de travail n’affecte pas la demande de désignation d’un médecin expert en référé (CA Paris, 6-2 21 juin 2018).

La Cour d’appel de Paris :

  • désigne M. R, expert près la Cour de cassation et près la cour d’appel de Versailles, en qualité de médecin-expert qui, après avoir pris connaissance du dossier médical de Monsieur X et en particulier des divers avis d’aptitude émis par le médecin du travail, procédera à l’examen médical de l’intéressé et donnera un avis motivé sur son aptitude ;
  • Fixe à 1.000 € la provision à valoir sur les honoraires du médecin-expert que la caisse des dépôts et consignations devra consigner à la Caisse des dépôts et consignations dans le mois de la mise à disposition du présent arrêt.

En savoir plus sur https://www.village-justice.com/articles/inaptitude-designation-medecin-expert-refere-prise-acte-salarie-rend-elle,28884.html#RMcwDGliHQBbuVzI.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 23/06/18

Il résulte de l'article L. 3342-1 du code du travail que tous les salariés de l'entreprise où a été conclu un accord d'intéressement et de participation doivent avoir la possibilité de bénéficier de la répartition des résultats de l'entreprise, sans que puisse leur être opposé le fait qu'ils n'exécutent pas leur activité en France ou qu'ils n'y sont pas rémunérés ; que la clause d'un accord d'intéressement et de participation excluant les salariés détachés à l'étranger dans une succursale est réputée non écrite. 

Engagés par la société BNP Paribas, MM. X..., Z..., A... et Y... ont été affectés, pendant des périodes comprises entre 1997 et 2012, dans des succursales situées à Londres, Singapour ou New York.

Au cours de l'année 2014, les salariés ont saisi le tribunal de grande instance de demandes en paiement de diverses sommes à titre de participation et d'intéressement.

Par 4 arrêts de la Cour d’appel de Paris du 8 décembre 2016, la Cour de cassation a admis la demande des salariés expatriés à un rappel de participation et intéressement.

BNP Paribas s’est pourvue en cassation.

Par 4 arrêts du 6 juin 2018, la Cour de cassation rejette le pourvoi de la banque.

Cette décision doit être approuvée d’autant que la succursale n’a pas de personnalité juridique.

L’arrêt est publié au bulletin des arrêts de la Cour de cassation, cette dernière ayant voulu donner à la décision une publicité que plus importante.

c. cass. 6 juin 2018, n°17-14372 à 17-14375, 4 arrêts publiés au bulletin

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000037077993&fastReqId=238650273&fastPos=1

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 22/06/18

The collective performance agreements (accords de performance collective) were set up by Article 3 of Macron Ordinance n° 2017-1385 of September 22nd 2017.

They have the specificity to prevail over the provisions of an individual employment contract (contrat de travail) including in a direction unfavourable to the employee.

However, on the occasion of law n° 2018-217 of March 29th, 2018 to ratify the Macron ordinances, the parliamentarians added a provision that provoked lively debate since it allows these agreements to modify or put in place annual flat rate agreements (forfait jours) (article L. 2254-2 of French labour Code).

1) What is a collective performance agreement (accord de performance collective)?

1.1. Purpose: to meet the needs related to the operation of the company or to preserve or develop employment.

The collective performance agreement is a collective agreement concluded "in order to meet the needs related to the operation of the company or to preserve or develop employment" and whose provisions replace the contrary or incompatible provisions of the employment contract. (Article L. 2254-2, I of French Labour Code)

1.2. A majority agreement

It brings together and replaces existing old arrangements: job retention agreements, preservation or employment development agreements, working time reduction agreements and internal mobility agreements.

To be valid, the collective performance agreement must have the signature of one or more trade union organizations that obtained more than 50% of the votes cast in the first round of the last professional elections.

1.3. Collective Performance Agreement: exception to the principle of favour (principe de faveur)!

The provisions of the agreement thus concluded are automatically substituted to the contrary or incompatible provisions of the employment contract. (Article L. 2254-2, III of French Labour Code)

This is therefore an exception to the principle of favour since the provisions of the collective agreement will prevail over the provisions of the employment contract (contrat de travail), no matter whether they are more or less favourable to the employee.

1.4. In case of refusal by an employee: sui generis dismissal

The employee may always refuse the application of the provisions of the agreement and the modification of his employment contract which follows within a month from the date on which the employer informed him/her of the agreement and of its contents. (Article L. 2254-2, IV of French Labour Code)

If necessary, the employer has a period of two months to implement the dismissal, the refusal of the employee constitutes a sui generis dismissal which carries the same consequences as a dismissal for personal reasons besides the contribution of the personal account at least 100 hours. (Article L. 2254-2, V of French Labour Code)

2) The insertion of a flat rate agreements (forfait jours) by a collective performance agreement

A collective agreement can set up a flat rate agreements (forfait jours) since the article L. 2254-2 of French Labour Code aims precisely the organization of "the duration of the work, its modalities of organization and of division ". (Article L. 2254-2, I of French Labour Code)

However, the introduction of a flat rate agreements (forfait jours) remains subject to the conditions pertaining to this type of organization of work provided for in Articles L. 3121-53 to L.3121-66 of French Labour Code: "Articles L. 3121- 53 to L. 3121-66 apply if the agreement implements or modifies an annual flat-rate scheme, with the exception of Article L. 3121-55 and 5 ° of I of Article L. 3121-64 in case of simple modification”. (Article L. 2254-2, II, 4 ° of French Labour Code)

2.1. A written flat rate agreement (forfait jours)

The collective performance agreement therefore in no way allows an employer to require the employee to go under a flat rate agreement (forfait jours).

The employer is still required to conclude an individual flat-rate agreement in writing with the employee whose consent must be obtained.

On this point, the General Director of Labour (Directeur général du travail) considers that the employee's refusal to sign a flat-rate agreement (forfait jours), even on the basis of a collective performance agreement (accord de performance collective), cannot constitute a ground for dismissal. (See Liaisons Sociales June 4th, 2018: l’accord de performance collective peut il imposer un forfait jours à un salarié?)

2.2. Follow-up of the workload (charge de travail) of an employee under a flat-rate agreement (forfait jours)

Similarly, the implementation of a flat-rate agreement does not exempt the employer to carry out an annual evaluation monitoring a flat-rate agreement.

2.3. Warning: still no flat rate agreement for employees in shift work (travail posté).

Above all, the employer still cannot subject any employee to a flat-rate agreement.

Only executives whose nature of work does not lead them to follow the collective schedule applicable within the workshop, department or team to which they are integrated are eligible; employees who have real autonomy in organizing their schedule. (Article L. 3121-56 of French Labour Code)

Such a device is therefore excluded for all shift work (assistant, accountant, etc.).

3) The modification of a flat-rate agreement by a collective performance agreement (accord de performance collective)

The situation is however very different when it comes, through the collective agreement, not to insert a flat rate agreement but to change an already existing flat rate agreements.

In fact, Article L. 2254-1 of French Labour Code excludes, in case of a simple modification of the a flat rate agreement (forfait jours), the application of Articles L. 3121-55 (need to obtain the agreement of the employee and conclude a written agreement) and 5 ° I of Article L. 3121-64 of French Labour Code (need for the individual agreement to fix the number of days included in the package). (Article L. 2254-2, II, 4 ° of French Labour Code)

Therefore, the collective performance agreement can validly modify of the number of days provided by the flat rate agreement (forfait jours) and the employee who is affected by such change has one month to refuse.

If necessary, he/she may be dismissed under the conditions previously set out (see § 1.4 above).

However, the employee may still challenge the validity of his/her initial flat rate agreement (forfait jours) with the standard conditions of resort to fixed days before French Labour Tribunal (Conseil de prud’hommes).

Moreover, if he succeeds on this point, it will then be possible to plead that the dismissal based on the refusal of the modification of an unvalid flat rate agreement is unfair.

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 19/06/18

L’accord collectif peut parfaitement prévoir la mise en place d’un forfait annuel en jours puisque l’article L.2254-2 du Code du travail vise précisément l’aménagement de « la durée du travail, ses modalités d’organisation et de répartition ». (Art. L. 2254-2, I du Code du travail)

Toutefois, la mise en place d’un forfait jours demeure subordonnée aux conditions afférentes à ce mode d’organisation du travail prévues aux articles L. 3121-53 à L.3121-66 du Code du travail : « Les articles L. 3121-53 à L. 3121-66 s’appliquent si l’accord met en place ou modifie un dispositif de forfait annuel, à l’exception de l’article L. 3121-55 et du 5° du

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

En savoir plus sur https://www.village-justice.com/articles/salaries-cadres-cadres-dirigeants-accords-performance-collective-forfait-jours,28799.html#jcyCUurT6iO8k5Mj.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