Telework Compensation and Work Hours

Extract

[...] In law, telecommuting is not an absolute right for the employee. Article L1222-9 of the Labour Code provides that the employer may refuse a request for telecommuting, provided that they justify their refusal. Furthermore, the principle imposed on the employer of 'equal treatment' provided by article L1132-1, may be tempered by thearticle L1133-1 which provides that if the difference is based on a fundamental and determining professional requirement, the difference in treatment will be legitimate. In this case, the employee is eligible for telework But the employer's refusal is motivated by an organizational criterion: the need to maintain 30% of staff on site to ensure the "operation of the service", which is explicitly provided for in the collective agreement. [...]

[...] The Court of Cassation quashed and annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal on the basis of Article L. 1121-1 of the Labour Code. The High Jurisdiction recalls that the occupation of the employee's home for professional purposes constitutes an intrusion into private life and does not fall within the general economy of the contract. It sets the principle that the employee can claim compensation for this purpose as soon as a professional premises is not actually made available to him. [...]

[...] The Court of Cassationrejects the appeal of labor inspectors. She approved the reasoning of the appeals court on the following points : The Supreme Court upholds the sovereign assessment of the trial judges (the Court of Appeal). The Court of Appeal had noted that the presence of a hotline or security agentswas not enough, in itself, to "deny automaticity"" of the store. That's the crucial point. The Court of Appeal had noted that it was notnot demonstrated that security agents (who were not Casino employees) acted outside of their surveillance functions toparticipate in the operation of the store (for example, for its storage or for assistance at the cash registers). [...]

[...] The employer is held to aobligation of safety provided by the article L4121-1 C. of the labor code. He must take all necessary measures to ensure safety and protect the physical and mental health of his employees; by implementing risk prevention actions, and the implementation of adapted organization and means. The employee must also benefit from a minimum daily rest of11 consecutive hours between two working days as provided by article L3131-1 C. of the Labour Code. However, it may not restrict the rights of individuals and collective freedoms in a way that is not justified by the nature of the task to be performed and proportionate to the goal pursued. [...]

[...] He also has a workstation at the company's headquarters. Finally, the occupation of his home does not result from a constraint imposed by the company. The companyis therefore not required is therefore not required to pay an occupation allowance to the employee. On this point, the director's refusal is based. 2. The case of Mr. Falon (Work accident) Does a domestic accident occurring at the employee's home during working hours in telework benefit from the presumption of qualification of a work accident? [...]