Protection of Employee Whistleblowers Under French Labour Law
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Whistleblower protection, employee informant, labour law, freedom of denunciation, good faith, legal alert procedures, whistleblowing employee, protection regime, labour code, article L.1132-3-3, dismissal nullity, whistleblower rights, transparency law, corruption fight, economic alert, internal alert devices, labour code protection, employee rights, whistleblower status, reporting procedure, bad faith, cassation court, social chamber, employment law, whistleblower legislation, company committee, economic alert right
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
The legal framework protecting employee whistleblowers in France, focusing on the conditions and scope of protection granted to employees reporting wrongdoing.
Extract
[...] Article L.1132-3-3 of the Labour Code - Whistleblowers: protection and sanctions - Commentary on Article L. 1132-3-3 of the Labour Code: « ANo person who has testified, in good faith, to facts constituting a crime or a crime of which they have become aware in the exercise of their functions or who has reported such facts may be subject to the measures mentioned in Article L. 1121-2. The persons mentioned in the first paragraph of this article benefit from the protections provided for in I and III of Article 10-1 and Articles 12 to 13-1 of Law No. [...]
[...] It does not matter that the employer also mentions the racist behavior of the director. The mere reference to the reports renders the dismissal letter null and void. However, the other grievances may affect the consequences of the annulment of the dismissal. The consequences of nullity are multiple. First, it grants the employee the right to reinstatement in the company as well as a severance pay to compensate for the economic damage suffered between the dismissal and reinstatement. Then, in the event of non-reinstatement, the employee may receive an indemnity equivalent to the salaries of the last six months, without recourse to the Macron scales. [...]
[...] Only the protection of the individual whistleblower, here called the employee informant, will be studied, and in light of these provisions, one is well-founded to question the scope of protection granted to employees who have testified, in good faith, to facts constituting a crime or a crime of which they have become aware in the exercise of their functions. Therefore, it will be successively studied the framework of protection of whistleblowers and in a second time the sanctions provided (II). I. [...]
[...] This reduction of the indemnifiable consequences only applies a priori to null dismissals for violation of a fundamental freedom, not for other motives. Thus, the employer cannot escape the nullity of the dismissal or the attenuation of the compensation by invoking other motives mentioned in the dismissal letter. [...]
[...] The social chamber recalls that the simple act of reporting facts that may constitute a crime, an offense, a serious violation of an international commitment or the law, or a threat or serious harm to the general interest, results in the nullity of the dismissal. This notion of "only" indicates a contaminating reason. Consequently, even if the dismissal is partially motivated by an infringement of a fundamental freedom, discrimination, or any other cause of nullity, it is annulled. In the second case, the Court of Cassation approves the nullity of the dismissal without looking for other reasons in the dismissal letter, despite the company's request. [...]
