The employer cannot lay off an employee who was protected, for a motive already rejected by the work inspection
Labour Law
Source: Supreme Court, Social Ch., 23 Sept 2015, n°14-10.648
According to a decision dated 23rd September 2015, an employee, who was previously union representative (hence protected employee) in a first company and was transferred to another company in which he was asked to do some handling tasks of aircraft type seat. The employee refused to do those tasks because he considered that they were not part of his duties.
Indeed, as an "aircraft type seat mechanic", his tasks consisted in ensure the removing and refitting, the inspection, the repairing and the modification of the aircraft type seat, and not the handling. He had then been the subject of two lay off proceedings on the grounds of fault, which ended in the refusal of authorization by the work inspection.
At the end of his period of protection, the employee has finally been laid off by his employer because he still refused to accomplish the litigious tasks. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered that the employer could not lay off an employee, formerly protected, for a motive that had already ended in a decision of refusal by the work inspection.
Thus the Court considers: "Whereas, however, the lay-off pronounced after the expiration of the legal period of protection, cannot be driven by the facts mentioned in front of the administrative authority and which ended in a decision of refusal of the authorization of the lay-off;
Then, considering as included in his employment contract, the tasks of handling aircraft type seats and, considering faulty the refusal of the employee to accomplish them though the administrative authority had previously refused to authorize the lay-off of the employee, for the motive that those tasks were not inherent to the contract and resulted from a modification that the employee had the right to refuse, the Court of Appeal has violated the aforementioned text."
Historique
-
Law applicable to a surety-bond loan: the provisions of the Civil Code and the Consumption Code do not constitute mandatory rules
Publié le : 22/10/2015 22 octobre oct. 10 201520152015 / OctobreCivil Law / Commercial Law Source: Supreme Court, 1st Civil Ch. 16th Sept 2015, n°14-10.373 JurisData n° 2015-020553 On April 19th 2006, an Italian ban...
-
A cheque not dated given as a guarantee of a loan of money is valid
Publié le : 22/10/2015 22 octobre oct. 10 201520152015 / OctobreCivil Law Source: Supreme Court, Commercial Ch., 22nd Sept 2015, n°14-17.901 JurisData n° 2015-021015 As a guarantee of a loan of €500,000.00, the debt...
-
Action of the creditor against the offending third party seized, in the absence of a declaration of debt at the collective proceeding of the debtor
Publié le : 22/10/2015 22 octobre oct. 10 201520152015 / OctobreCollective proceedings Source: Supreme Court, Commercial Ch., 8 Sept 2015, n°14-15.831 In application of the articles L211-3, R211-4 and 5 related to t...
-
The employer cannot lay off an employee who was protected, for a motive already rejected by the work inspection
Publié le : 22/10/2015 22 octobre oct. 10 201520152015 / OctobreLabour Law Source: Supreme Court, Social Ch., 23 Sept 2015, n°14-10.648 According to a decision dated 23rd September 2015, an employee, who was previou...
-
The travelling times domicile-first client and last client-domicile of itinerant employees must be considered as an effective working time
Publié le : 22/10/2015 22 octobre oct. 10 201520152015 / OctobreLabour Law Source: European Court of Justice, 10 Sept 2015, n° C-266/14 In an important decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has considered th...
-
Adoption by the Senate of the Project of Law for the modernisation of the French Health System (consecration of the right to oblivion)
Publié le : 22/10/2015 22 octobre oct. 10 201520152015 / OctobreThe Senate has adopted on October 6th 2015 a Project of Law establishing the right to oblivion for the persons who were previously affected by cancer, which...