The trade union “Sud Renault Guyancourt-Aubevoye”, recognised representative at the level of the Guyancourt-Aubevoye establishment was allocated an Intranet site. Management refused to make this site accessible to the employees on the basis that the name of the trade union appearing there, “Syndicat Sud Renault” was not identical to its statutory name and that the trade union had inserted links allowing access to the trade union sites of other establishments on the site in disregard of the provisions of the applicable charters, which reserve the insertion of links solely to the representative trade unions at company level. The trade union “Sud Renault Guyancourt-Aubevoye” applied to the judge to have the employer ordered to make its intranet site accessible.

Its applications were dismissed by the Versailles Court of Appeal and the trade union then brought an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the trade union was correct in claiming that “the facilities provided by a general or more limited collective bargaining agreement allowing trade union sites to be made mutually accessible through links on the company Intranet cannot be reserved to only the representative trade unions at company level without breaching the principle of equality, since posting and disseminating trade union communications within the company are linked [...] to the setting up by trade union organizations of a trade union division, which is not subject to the requirement of being representative.”

However, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal in dismissing the trade union’s claims, on the basis that the latter, had a “name other than that specified in its articles of association and which was such as to mislead employees regarding its scope of application and the extent of how representative it was.” (Supreme Court, Social Affairs Division, 23 May 2012, No. 11-14930).