factory inspectorate of Aquitaine

In a stop of March 7th, 2007 the Court of appeal specified that retirement by the employer of an employee whose contract is suspended for industrial accident is null. In the business in question the employee had asked the employer to put it at the retreat and this last had accepted. The procedure which had been followed was thus that of a retirement and not that of one voluntary departure to the retreat. The Court of appeal condemned the employer and stated the rupture null: the contract had been broken by the employer by the means of retirement, therefore it was not legal.

The work contract of a wage-earner contained a clause of mobility, expect that it could be transferred in another establishment of the firm. Its employer asked him to share his working time between 2 stores. The wage-earner was laid off to have refused to carry out part of her activity to the 2nd store. The court of appeal reminds the meeting that “the clause of mobility did not make it possible the employer to impose on paid sharing of its working time between several establishments”. The dismissal was thus unjustified. Cass. Plowshare December 20th, 2006, 09 46224

The Court of the arbitration is held to adhere to the decisions of the penal judge. A wage-earner had shown her hierarchically superior of sexual harassment. The magistrates' court released this last, estimating that the facts were not established. Following this decision, the Court of appeal specifies that the Court of the arbitration cannot ignore this judgment and grant damages to the wage-earner. Failing this, he would violate the principle of the authority of the final decision with penal on the share carried in front of the civil jurisdiction. Cass. Plowshare November 3rd, 2005, 23 42839