Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 19

Courts provide clarification on paid holiday

Bird & Bird
-
European Union, France
-
July 18 2012

Recent judgments passed down by the European Court of Justice and the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on French employment laws, specifically on the accrual of paid holiday, the effect of sick leave on holiday entitlement and the obligation to ensure that employees are able to take paid holiday

Isolated fact may be sexual harassment even if it takes place outside the workplace

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
May 16 2012

A manager (the director of a bank) had set up a professional meeting with one of his female employees outside regular work hours in a hotel room

Sex, lies and employees: pornography in the workplace

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
December 7 2011

Under French law, employers must tolerate employees' reasonable personal use of IT systems

Disciplinary action is limited by the terms of internal regulations

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
June 3 2011

In a recent case (Cass Soc 26102010, n 09-42.740) the Cour de Cassation held that a company can apply only disciplinary measures that are expressly provided for in its internal regulations

Bullying does not need to be long term to constitute harassment

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
August 12 2010

The Labour Code and previous court decisions highlighted the fact that the actions considered as bullying must be repeated in order to constitute harassment, and it was on this basis that the Court of Appeal in the present case held that while the employee was demoted and sidelined following a long term sick leave, and threatened and insulted after a second period returning to work, these events took place over a relatively short period (of approximately one month), insufficient, bearing in mind the period of sick leave, to characterise harassment through bullying

Employees made redundant must be informed of the grounds for redundancy at the latest by the date they accept the CRP

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
August 12 2010

The State-run CRP (convention de reclassement personnalisée) redeployment programme must be proposed to employees at risk of redundancy in particular in businesses of less than 1,000 employees, either during their preliminary meeting, or in procedures where no preliminary meeting is required, following on from the final employee representative meeting

The employer's redeployment obligations in the event of redundancy cannot be limited by employees' refusal in principle before any concrete proposal is made

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
June 15 2009

In the event of redundancies on economic grounds, the employer has an obligation to propose any available positions within the company and even the group for redeployment. Consistent case law requires any available positions abroad to also be offered

An employee cannot be dismissed for false accusations of harassment and bullying, unless it can be shown that the claims were made in bad faith

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
June 15 2009

The Cour de Cassation has confirmed the full force of anti-retaliation rules under French law which apply to victims of harassment, holding that an employee who brought a false claim against their employer for bullying and harassment cannot be disciplined, dismissed, or suffer discriminatory measures, in particular in terms of compensation, training, redeployment, promotion or renewal of their employment contract, for having claimed to have suffered harassment, despite the fact that the claims made could not be substantiated

Failure to follow procedural timing requirements will result in authorisation being refused for the termination of protected employees

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
June 15 2009

In order for the employer to dismiss a protected employee (i.e. an employee representative or similar), authorisation must be obtained from the Labour Administration

Bonuses and variable compensation must be based on objective criteria

Bird & Bird
-
France
-
June 15 2009

In a previous case (Cass. Soc. 27 March 2009), it was held that a collective variable compensation plan cannot provide for total discretion from the employer in terms of the payment of bonuses, requiring such bonuses to be based on rules that are defined in advance and can be monitored

next >