NewsletterNeswletter No.199 – July 2025
CLASS ACTION: The list of courts with jurisdiction to hear class actions is now established.
The scope of class actions, which may be brought by representative trade unions and associations duly authorized for this purpose, has been extended to include all breaches by employers of their legal or contractual obligations by Law No. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025. A decree dated 16 July 2025 designates the courts with jurisdiction to hear class action disputes. These are the courts of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nancy, Paris, Rennes, and Fort-de-France. Table X annexed to the Code of Civil Procedure specifies the jurisdiction of these courts. The competent Court of Appeal is that of the seat of the court that heard a class action (Decree No. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025).
NULLITY OF DISMISSAL: An employee whose dismissal is declared null may claim compensation for back pay but is not entitled to severance payments.
An employee whose dismissal was held to be null and void sought reinstatement. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), referring to Article L. 1234-9 of the Labor Code, ruled that an employee reinstated following a dismissal declared null “is entitled to compensation equal to the remuneration they would have received between the date of their exclusion and the date of their reinstatement […] but may not claim severance payments.” Furthermore, the Cour de cassation confirmed that the employer is required to reimburse France Travail for the unemployment benefits paid to the employee, up to a maximum of six months, in accordance with the provisions of Article L. 1235-4 of the Labor Code, even though the employee is not required to reimburse the unemployment benefits received (Cass., Soc. 9 July 2025, No. 23-21.863)
TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVENESS: A ministerial order establishes the representativeness and weight of trade union organizations at the national and cross-industry level.
The representative trade union organizations at the national and cross-industry levels are:
the CFDT with 30.88%, the CGT with 25.70%, the CGT-FO with 17.27%, the CFE-CGC with 15.01%, and the CFTC with 11.14% (Ministerial Order of 8 July 2025 establishing the list of trade union organizations recognized as representative at the national and cross-industry levels).
PAYSLIP: The date appearing on the payslip only serves as a presumption of recognition of seniority.
In this case, an employee’s payslip indicated that she had been hired in 2019, meaning she had two years of seniority. However, the employee claimed that she benefited from a recognition of seniority for more than 10 years, on the grounds that her payslip mentioned a conventional seniority bonus granted to employees with more than 10 years of seniority. The Cour de cassation held that, pursuant to the provisions of “Articles L. 3243-1 and R. 3243-1 of the French Labor Code, the seniority date appearing on the payslip serves as a presumption of recognition of seniority unless the employer provides proof otherwise“. In this case, the Court considered that the trial judges had not responded to the employer’s submissions and had therefore not verified whether the presumption had not been overturned, thus depriving the appeal decision of a legal basis (Cass. Soc. 9 July 2025, No. 24-16.281).
TRANSFER OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
:
The transfer of an employment contract pursuant to collective bargaining provisions results in the termination of the contractual relationship with the former employer.
The employment contract of an employee covered by the collective bargaining agreement for private security companies was transferred to a new employer following the takeover of the security contract to which the employee was assigned. The employee brought a claim against his former employer, notably seeking compensation for undeclared work, which requires, under Article L. 8223-1 of the French Labor Code, the termination of the employment contract. The Cour de cassation held that the employment contract had not been transferred under the provisions of Article L. 1224-1 of the Labor Code (relating to cases of succession, sale, merger, or transformation of the business), which maintains the employment contract in its original provisions, but rather pursuant to collective bargaining provisions requiring the conclusion of an amendment to the employment contract: “if an amendment to the employment contract concluded with the new employer includes all the contractual clauses of the employee’s original contract, the employment relationship with the former employer is terminated, so that the latter […] is liable for compensation for undeclared work”
(Cass. Soc., 2 July 2025, No. 23-20.428).
INVESTIGATION REPORT: Judges must assess anonymous witness statements in light of other evidence when assessing allegations supporting a dismissal.
In this case, a financial advisor was dismissed on the grounds of “dishonest conduct aimed at obtaining confidential data relating to the bank’s clients“. The dismissal letter was based on employees’ anonymous witness statements gathered during an internal investigation, corroborated by bailiffs’ reports based on video surveillance footage of the premises. The Cour de cassation held that it fell within the trial judges’ sovereign power of assessment to determine the probative value of the evidence submitted by the parties. In this case, the anonymous witness statements, even when corroborated by bailiffs’ reports, were not deemed sufficient to establish the employee’s alleged misconduct, whose dismissal was therefore held to be without real and serious cause (Cass. Soc., 2 July 2025, No. 24-13.770).
TERMINATION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD: Termination of a probationary period on discriminatory grounds does not entitle the employee to compensation for null and void dismissal.
An employee, who was on sick leave during her probationary period, was informed of its termination. She challenged the termination on the grounds that it was discriminatory and sought the compensation provided for in cases of null and void dismissal. The Cour de cassation held that “an employee whose probationary period is terminated on discriminatory grounds is not entitled to the compensation provided for in the event of null and void dismissal, but rather to compensation for the harm resulting from the unlawfulness of tthe termination.” The Court also reiterated that assessment of such harm falls within the discretion of the trial judges (Cass. Soc, 25 June 2025, No. 23-17.999).