NewsletterNewsletter No. 211 – July 2026
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL: The Employment Tribunal, which has jurisdiction to award compensation for losses arising from the termination of an employment contract, does not have jurisdiction over damages resulting from an occupational disease or a workplace accident, even where the employer is liable.
An employee who had suffered a workplace accident and was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal, seeking damages from his employer for breach of its duty to ensure health and safety. The Court of Appeal had upheld his claim, considering that the loss arose from the termination of his employment contract. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) disagreed, holding that the employee was in fact seeking compensation for damage arising from the workplace accident he had suffered, rather than from the termination of his employment contract. In so ruling, the Court of Appeal had infringed Article L.451-1 of the French Social Security Code, which provides that “no action for compensation in respect of the accidents and diseases referred to in this Book may be brought under general civil law by the victim or their legal successors.” It follows that compensation for such damage, whether or not attributable to the employer, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts with jurisdiction over social security matters, thus rendering any claim, brought before the Employment Tribunal on that basis, inadmissible (Cass. Soc. 8 July 2026, No. 24-16.665).
SICK LEAVE: Work carried out by an employee on their own initiative during sick leave does not entitle them to claim compensation on that basis.
An employee who had been placed on sick leave and was subsequently dismissed on grounds of unfitness brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal to challenge the validity of her dismissal and seek payment of various sums. In particular, she sought damages for her employer’s breach of its duty to ensure health and safety, arguing that she had been forced to work during her sick leave. The Cour de cassation nevertheless upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that the Court of Appeal had been entitled to find that the employee had worked during her sick leave on her own initiative. She had thus failed to establish “the existence and extent of her loss“, which justified the dismissal of her claim for damages (Cass. Soc. 1 July 2026, No. 25-15.732).
WORKING TIME: The Cour de cassation dismisses a priority question of constitutionality concerning the special regime applicable to civil aviation flight crew.
The principle of equality does not require identical treatment for different situations. It even permits derogations justified by the public interest, provided, however, that the difference in treatment remains directly related to the purpose of the legislation establishing them. On that basis, the Cour de cassation declined to refer to the Constitutional Council a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) challenging Article L.6525-1 of the Transport Code, which excludes civil aviation flight crew from the provisions of the Labour Code governing rest breaks, night work and daily rest. The exclusion is justified by the particular conditions under which civil aviation flight crew perform these duties (jet lag, stopovers), and by the existence of a specific regime under the Transport Code designed to protect their health and safety, notably through limits on flight and duty time, mandatory rest periods and days off duty (Cass. Soc. QPC 2 July 2026, No. 26-40.006).
HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK: The Law “on combating social security and tax fraud” strengthens obligations and penalties relating to the prevention of occupational risks.
Law No. 2026-534 on combating social security and tax fraud was adopted on 11 May 2026 and promulgated on 25 June 2026 with a threefold objective: to better detect, sanction, and recover fraud. Article 48 of the Law sets out the main measures relating to occupational accidents and des (AT/MP), the professional prevention account (Compte professionnel de prévention (C2P)) and the single occupational risk assessment document (DUERP). In particular, the Law fills the legal loophole in Article L.8115-1 of the Labour Code, which had not previously included the absence of a DUERP among the breaches subject to penalties. It therefore introduces a fine of up to €4,000 per employee “in the absence of the document“, doubled in the event of a repeat offence within two years or increased by 50% for a further breach within one year of a warning. In addition, monitoring of the C2P has been strengthened, with the minimum penalty increasing from approximately €13 to €50 per employee in the event of an omission or inaccurate declaration. Lastly, the prevention passport is now available to “any holder of a Compte personnel de formation” rather than only to workers, with employers now able to consult the data contained therein unless the employee objects (Law No. 2026-534 of 25 June 2026 on combating social security and tax fraud (1), Official Journal).
TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: Informing an employee during a WhatsApp exchange that dismissal is being contemplated does not amount to verbal dismissal.
During a WhatsApp exchange, a manager informed an employee that her dismissal was being contemplated, without specifying either the grounds for, or the terms of, the proposed dismissal. The employee was dismissed on economic grounds two months later but argued that her dismissal had in fact taken place during the WhatsApp exchange. She therefore brought proceedings before the Employment Tribunal seeking compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause. Under the Labour Code, notice of dismissal must be given to the employee by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt, meaning that termination of the employment contract communicated only verbally is deemed to lack real and serious cause. In the present case, the Cour de cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision dismissing the employee’s claim, noting that the employment relationship had continued normally following the WhatsApp exchange. The Court of Appeal had therefore rightly concluded that “merely informing the employee orally that her dismissal was being contemplated was not sufficient to establish the existence of a verbal dismissal” (Cass. Soc. 24 June 2026, No. 24-19.759).
SHORT-TIME WORK – HEATWAVES: In response to intensifying heatwaves, the Ministry of Labour is considering strengthening employers’ obligations.
Since 2 July 2025, companies have been required to assess the risks associated with periods of extreme heat and to adapt their preventive measures according to official weather alert levels. As a result, and given the intensification of heatwaves since May 2026, labour inspectorate inspections have increased, particularly in the construction and agricultural sectors. In addition, the Ministry of Labour has clarified the conditions under which employers may rely on the short-time working scheme in the event of a heatwave, on the grounds of “exceptional circumstances“. Companies must therefore demonstrate a direct link between the extreme heat and the unforeseeable reduction in activity, after having exhausted all reasonably available alternative measures (adjusted working hours, remote working, leave). Finally, on 26 June 2026, the Ministry of Labour announced that discussions would be launched with a view to reaching sector-wide collective agreements by summer 2027, while stating its opposition to a heat threshold that would trigger a mandatory work stoppage (Ministry of Labour and Solidarity website).