The Court of Cassation yesterday endorsed Emmanuel Macron’s first social reform in 2017.
Yes, definitely. This concerns the framework for damages awarded by industrial tribunals in the event of dismissal without real and serious cause by companies. To be clear, we are talking here about separation in pain, conflict. Well, to be really clear and honest, I’m not going to bullshit you: it’s a really technical subject, for the “big guys”! But it is a concrete subject, which closely concerns companies and employees. Explanations. Before 2017, labor judges did pretty much what they wanted, compensation varied from place to place. And employers considered it a lottery, it fueled their fear of hiring. Well, in 2017, a scale was set, with floors and ceilings (20 months) depending on the seniority of the employee. And for five years, the unions had hoped for a condemnation of this reform based on international texts. Bet lost. Yesterday, the Court of Cassation, like before the Council of State and the Constitutional Council, ruled that the industrial tribunal must apply this scale without derogating from it for this or that reason, in this or that particular case. Except for the cases and discriminations explicitly cited by law, such as moral or sexual harassment or the dismissal of a protected employee. So much for the technique and thank you to the listeners who have followed me so far on this arduous path. What to conclude? The Court of Cassation considers 1- that the stability and predictability of social law are important. This is also true for tax law. And 2- she reminds that a scale is not a prison, the law sets a range of compensation, the judge still has latitude. Well, what concrete consequences? We could embroider for hours on the notions of coincidence and causality. But what is certain is that there have never been so many hires, including permanent contracts. What is also certain is that the heads of SMEs that we meet no longer talk about this subject, whereas it was obsessive before. Have employees lost? A little, but only because there are no longer very high allowances. Below, no change. On the other hand, there is a hole in the racket to be corrected, the case of employees with little seniority. All in all, the alignment of the constitutional, judicial and administrative authorities with a need for clarity expressed for 30 years by economic actors constitutes the most notable information. It’s fun and it’s not technical at all.