Facts
Galderma Research & Development (the GRD company), a subsidiary of the Nestlé Group, implemented a PSE approved by the DREETS in April 2018.
29 of the company’s employees (including 3 protected employees) had signed an amicable termination agreement for economic reasons as part of the PSE. The labor inspectorate had authorized the termination of the protected employees’ contracts.
Challenging the economic reason for the termination of their employment contract, the 29 employees brought an action before the industrial tribunal seeking compensation for various losses.
The position of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal
The Court ruled that the challenge to the economic reason for dismissal was admissible on the grounds that ”as the amicable termination agreement falls within the scope of the provisions applicable to dismissals for economic reasons, the employer must establish the existence of a lawful economic reason”, so that ”the employee is therefore entitled to challenge the reasons for dismissal”.
The Court also declared the industrial tribunal competent to rule on the claims of protected employees, on the grounds that “the judicial judge remains competent to rule on individual disputes relating to the existence of an economic reason (…)”.
Solution by the Cour de cassation
The French Labour Court overturned the judgments and reiterated the principle that when “the termination of the employment contract results from the conclusion of an amicable agreement reached as part of the implementation of a plan to safeguard employment including a voluntary redundancy scheme, submitted to the staff representatives, the cause of the termination cannot be contested, except in the event of fraud or a defect in consent”.
With regard to protected employees, the Social Division quashed the decision, citing the principle of separation of powers, the law of August 16-24, 1790 and the decree of 16 fructidor an III.
“Without violating the principle of the separation of powers, the judicial judge cannot, in the light of an administrative decision authorizing the amicable termination of employment as part of the implementation of an employment protection plan accompanied by a voluntary redundancy plan that has become final, assess the real and serious nature of the reason for the termination with regard to the economic cause or the employer’s compliance with its obligation to redeploy.
Remarks
This decision by the Cour de cassation is a confirmation of case law.
Indeed, the French Labour Court has consistently ruled that, where the termination of an employment contract results from the conclusion of an amicable termination agreement that complies with the provisions of a collective agreement submitted to staff representatives, or of a job protection plan, the economic cause of the termination cannot be challenged, barring fraud or a defect in consent (Cass. soc., Feb. 8, 2012, no. 10-27.176 in particular).
Furthermore, the Conseil d’Etat takes the same position, and recently reiterated that while “it is up to the labor inspector and, where applicable, the minister, in particular, to investigate, under the control of the judge of excess of power, whether the situation of the company (…) justifies the dismissal of the protected employee, this is not the case in the second hypothesis, as the termination of the employment relationship is the result, except in the case of fraud or defect of consent, of the agreement of the employee and the employer”. (CE, April 3, 2024, n°469694).
This confirmation is most welcome.
In fact, some lower courts continue to accept challenges to the economic grounds for amicable termination of employment, notably by reference to case law on the Contrat de Securisation Professionnelle (CSP).
However, if the employee accepts the CSP, the contract is terminated by mutual agreement in accordance with legal provisions (cf. article L. 12: “The employee’s acceptance of the professional securitization contract entails termination of the employment contract”), and not by the parties’ agreement.
The legal framework is therefore radically different.