Practice areas

Collective litigation

Our client

A telecommunications company undertaking mass dismissal on personal grounds, resulting in a settlement with the dismissed employees.

The context

The company was summoned before an industrial tribunal for a substantive examination of the case in proceedings instituted by the employees seeking to nullify their dismissal, settlement and to obtain reinstatement.

Pursuant to the general principle of law “fraus omnia corrumpit”, they esteemed their dismissal was based on economic reasons and as such fraudulent.

Results

Whereas the Court of Appeal had ruled in favour of their reinstatement, we obtained a decision from the French Supreme Court which declared that dismissed employees who had been working for less than two years could not be reinstated. The text sanctioned their dismissal and excluded nullity in the case of an employer unaware of his obligations with regard to employment preservation plans.

---

Our client

A company in the media sector decides to conduct a reorganisation operation and to layoff a number of jobs.

The context

A strong union opposition during the information and consultation phase between the company and the works council regarding the reorganisation operation and employment preservation plans led to multiple law suits, aimed at delaying the implementation of the employment preservation plan.

On the other hand, the CHSCT (the corporate committee for hygiene, safety and working conditions) called upon an expert to determine the impact of the reorganisation on working conditions and a second expert two months later to determine the impact of the layoffs.

Our approach

We took out fixed summons against the CHSCT and the expert to request for the rescission of the CHSCT’s second report on grounds that there could not be two separate reports for the same reorganisation operation.

The result

Ruling that the findings of the first report definitely covered the second, the district court rescinded the second report.

No appeal was made.

Executive Manager

Our client

A manager of an international group employed at its headquarters and serving at the group’s subsidiary;

The context

He learns that the shareholders had been holding consultations which could lead to a change in leadership. His contract includes a severance clause that protects him in case of dismissal, but he is apprehensive about the acquirer’s intentions regarding possible amendments to his duties, status or compensation, and to this end, wishes to modify the contractual provisions in the hypothetical event of his decision to end his contract.

He therefore wishes to be included in the negotiations so as to participate in the conclusions by setting up a transfer allowance, for him personally and his management team, as well as the modification of his contractual clause in case, based on the potential amendments, he decides he can no longer continue serving under satisfactory conditions (mainly in terms of change of autonomy, duties and confidence).

The challenge

For him to fulfil his duties without worrying about how a disposal would affect him personally, our client needed the right arguments to secure his position and remain motivated enough during the due diligence and negotiation phases.

The course of action

We conducted two negotiations: one with the French board of the international group’s local office, and the other with the Anglo-Saxon board at the headquarters. We made them understand that it would be in the interests of both parties to reach an agreement guaranteeing the smooth running of the group during this period, while being managed in the best possible way by a motivated management team while anticipating the possibility of the buyer wanting to terminate their collaboration. Very confidential negotiations were undertaken in a very fragile economic setting, allowing no room for mistakes.

Result

Setting up a transfer clause and modification of the job termination contract clause, followed a few months later by a settlement agreement, under a calm atmosphere considering that the expectations of both parties were met.

Mediation

Our client

A company owned by an international group is accused of moral harassment and does not wish to see its image tarnished by a lawsuit, accepts mediation to find a solution.

The situation was delicate as it involved two top executives, hence the importance of keeping the information known only by the concerned parties. The HRM had heard of mediation, but had never participated in one herself, but agreed to try and resolve the dispute through this means.

The context

The circumstances were very delicate as the plaintiff stated that the harassment began upon returning from her maternity leave. This rendered the situation delicate as in the event of an unfair dismissal, in addition to the harassment claim, the dismissal would have been nullified. It was also important for the company to preserve the balance of the departments led by the two executives. The company was not in a position to take sides with either party and had to demonstrate exemplary conduct during the proceedings to avoid any errors.

The course of action

We handled the mediation in the following manner: the Mediator chose to talk to both parties separately along with their respective lawyers. Then once everyone had come to an agreement, he organised a general meeting. He had come to the conclusion that the conflict in question had began a while back and had nothing to do with the employee’s return from maternity leave, and that it was in the interest of both parties to find a satisfactory solution for everyone concerned at the end of the mediation, for the sake of their respective reputations. Negotiations were undertaken, in strict confidence under delicate circumstances, which allowed for no mistakes as the balance of the two departments was at stake.

The result

The mediation eventually calmed tempers and resulted in the signing of a settlement agreement. The employee, who felt threatened, finally chose to leave the company in exchange of compensation for the prejudice inflicted by the termination of her employment contract, but abandoned the harassment charges.

Individual disputes

Our client

A car rental company that bought an agency formerly ran by another company.
Art. 1224-1 of the French Labour Code requires the company to take up all the employees following the acquisition.

The context

One of the employees brought an injunction against his previous employer without probable cause before the Paris industrial tribunal, seeking to have his contract terminated and get the latter to pay job termination compensation, in addition to paying all extra hours worked.

At the moment our client bought the agency, the employee was on sick leave and was already involved in litigation with his former employer. The employee was also going to bring an injunction against our client for the same reasons. She took up her position for a number of weeks, then went on leave, then just before resuming, she informed her employer via a letter stating that she considered that she would not be resuming her job on the basis that “it did not correspond at all to her contractual sphere of duties.”

The course of action

Our client discovered that the employee had created a company in order to run a hotel & restaurant located in Brittany, the activity having begun when she had taken her leave of absence.
We lodged a claim before the district court based on Art. 812 of the new civil procedures code in order to have a Court reporter appointed for the following mission:

• to go to the hotel & restaurant location;
• to attest to the employee’s presence there;
• to collect information on her position, duties and responsibilities within the establishment;
• to establish the exact date of commencement of running the hotel & restaurant and the date the employee began working in the said establishment;
• to obtain the unique records of arrival and departure of the employees and all of the employee’s pay slips since she began working there or all other forms of proof of payment for whatever reasons as well as the employment declaration before URSAFF (the French social security body the French social welfare collection bodies).
• to collect all information from anyone within the establishment on the employee’s activity within the hotel & restaurant;
• to draft all findings.

At the end of his mission, the Court reporter confirmed the presence of the employee within the said establishment, with the employee claiming to be a “volunteer”.
This report comes to back up our client’s argument that insists on the fact that he cannot be held liable for his predecessor’s shortcomings, especially considering that the latter was present during the proceedings in the industrial tribunal, and that it was clear that the employee had no intention of coming to work for the agency, but wished to be self-employed. Our client dismissed the employee on grounds of serious misconduct and violation of her loyalty obligations and un-justified absence.

The result

The industrial tribunal of Paris dismissed all of the employee’s claims.

• Top of the page
• Print