You are here:

France / Court of cassation / 15-12.588

Mr. X. v Socolit

Policy area:
Employment and social policy
Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
Court of cassation
Type:
Decision
Decision date:
15/04/2016

Key facts of the case: 

Mr. X. referred to the employment court following the termination of his contract during the probation period by the Socolit company. He asked for the termination to be ruled unlawful and to order the Socolit company to pay various sums of money, including for overtime. The Court of Appeal of Douai dismissed the employee's request for payment of overtime, by considering that the individual fixed rate convention, signed by the parties, comes under the scope of the national collective agreement of accountant firms.

Outcome of the case: 

The Court of cassation overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal which in dismissing the employee's demand for payment of overtime ruled that the individual fixed rate convention, signed by the parties, comes under the scope of the national collective agreement of accountant firms.

Indeed, according to the Court of cassation, the provisions of the national collective agreement of accountant firms, which restricts itself to providing, initially, that the workload required must not oblige an employee to exceed a limit on the daily duration of effective work, fixed at ten hours, and a limit on the weekly duration of effective work, fixed at forty-eight hours, and that exceeding these must be exceptional and justified by the employee, secondly, it requires the employer to take measures to ensure respect of the daily and weekly rest periods, and, thirdly, that the employee has great freedom in the management or the organization of the work corresponding to their role and in determining their work time, the employee and the employer examine together, in order to provide a solution, any situations in which these provisions taken by the employer to ensure respect of the daily and weekly rest periods could not be respected, are not likely to guarantee that the size of the workload remains reasonable and ensures a good distribution, over time, of the work of the interested party, and, therefore, to ensure the protection of the health and safety of the employee. The Court of Appeal should thus conclude that the fixed days convention was invalid.