Case law news: exemption from redeployment on grounds of unfitness only applies if the doctor’s opinion precludes continued employment
Cass. Soc., 13 September 2023, no. 22-12.970

The Labor Court has ruled that an occupational physician’s opinion which states that keeping the employee “in a job in the company” would be seriously detrimental to his/her health, does not mean that the employer is exempted from its obligation to reclassify the said employee, unlike an opinion which more generally excludes keeping the employee “in a job”.

Care should therefore be taken with the wording used by the occupational physician in the employee’s unfitness notice and as the case may be, it is appropriate to ask the doctor some precisions about the reclassification modalities.

Case law news: work stoppage and paid leave, the Labor Court aligns its case law with that of the CJEU
Cass. Soc., 13 September 2023, no. 22-17.638 and no.22-17.340
An employee whose employment contract is suspended due to sick leave, regardless of the reason (non-occupational or occupational: accident at work or occupational illness), will continue to cumulate paid leave throughout the period of sick leave.

In addition, the starting point for the limitation period for paid holiday pay (limitation period of 3 years from the date on which the employee should have exercised his right to paid holiday) can only begin to run if the employer has taken the necessary measures to enable the employee to effectively exercise his right to paid holiday.

The relationship between the right of employees on sick leave to acquire paid leave during their sick leave and the starting point of the limitation period for paid leave indemnity, which only begins to run when the employer provides proof of having given the employee the opportunity to take his paid leave, has not yet been clarified by the Labor Court.

Given the high financial risk for the employers of such new ruling and the impact for the past period (up to 3 years), the Ministry of Labour is examining the situation and it is likely that the draft bill will be proposed to try limit the impact of such ruling on companies. In the meantime, the situation for the employers is quite tricky and most of major companies have decided to push back the application of such a ruling waiting for a new law. In the meantime the situation remains at law very unsecure for the employer who have no serious grounds to push it back for the past period.

Case law news: the payment of damages for non-compliance with maximum working hours does not require proof of a loss distinct from that compensated for by compensatory rest
Cass. Soc., 27 septembre 2023, no. 21-24.782

Exceeding the maximum working time alone gives entitlement to compensation. In order to obtain payment of damages for failure to comply with maximum working hours, the employee does not therefore need to prove that he has suffered a loss other than that for which he is entitled to compensatory rest.