Court of Cassation Ruling on Employee Disciplinary Sanctions

Extract

[...] or pronounce another sanction, ? or, if the fault justifies it,engage a disciplinary dismissal. In this case, the transfer ofMulhouse to Reims implies achange of region and residence, which clearly goes beyond the simple change of working conditions. Nothing indicates that Mr. Boudard's contract includes amobility clause authorizing the employer to assign him freely to another establishment. The disciplinary transfer being consideredtherefore modifies an essential element of the employment contract: the place of work execution.The refusal of Mr. Boudard islegally legitimate : he is not at fault since he opposes a contractual modification that the employer cannot impose on him unilaterally. [...]

[...] After refusing the proposed demotion measure by the national disciplinary council, he was dismissed on 27 January 2016. Contesting the regularity of this break, he filed a labor court case to obtain various indemnities. The Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, by judgment of 27 May 2021, rejected his request, considering that the wrongful acts were not prescribed, the employer not having knowledge of the shortcomings reproached to him until 26 September 2015. The the applicant in the appeal, has formed an appeal against the Caisse d'épargne and de prévoyance Côte d'Azur, defendant in the appeal. [...]

[...] The employee, supported by a trade union, requests the cancellation of the three disciplinary sanctions before the labour court. The court of appeal declares the cancellation of the sanctions, considering that the safety manual and the C28 sheet must be assimilated to additions to the internal regulations, requiring specific formalities not respected such as publicity. Do internal documents of a company constitute additions to the internal regulations requiring consultation and publicity formalities? The Court of Cassation quashes and annuls the decision of the court of appeal. [...]

[...] Following the discovery of anomalies in the stock, the employer installed a video surveillance system to identify the source of these discrepancies. The viewing of the recordings revealed several irregularities in the cash operations carried out by the employee. She was then dismissed for serious misconduct by letter dated 19 July 2016. Contesting this decision, the employee brought a case to the labor court to obtain various damages and compensation for unfair dismissal. The Court of Appeal of Saint-Denis of Réunion, Appeal Chamber of Mamoudzou, rejected the employee's claims and ruled that the recordings from the video surveillance were admissible. [...]

[...] The Court of Cassation cassates and annuls the judgment of the Court of Appeal. She recalls, in view of articles L.1333-1 and L.1333-2 of the Labour Code, that he council of prud'hommes must appreciate the regularity of the disciplinary procedure and check if the facts attributed to the employee justify the sanction, in particular in terms of its proportionality. She states that the employee's acceptance of a modification to their employment contract proposed by the employer as a sanction does not constitute a waiver of the right to contest the regularity and validity of the sanction. [...]