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
-
Concubins, prenez garde en cas d’acquisition immobilière !
Publié le : 08/02/2016 08 février févr. 02 2016Droit de la famille20162016 / FévrierLa situation est classique : Monsieur paie les échéances de l’emprunt immobilier et Madame la nourriture, les vêtements et les charges courantes. Et, à l’heu...
-
Pas de mise en demeure en cas de dénégation du droit au statut des baux commerciaux.
Publié le : 24/01/2016 24 janvier janv. 01 2016Droit des affaires et de la consommation20162016 / JanvierDans cette affaire, une société immatriculée au registre du commerce et des sociétés pour des activités de vente d’objets d’arts a fait une demande de renouv...
-
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...