I. Facts.
An employee was hired in 2015 as an administrative agent by the Bas-Rhin primary health insurance fund, and was dismissed on January 10, 2018.
She contested this dismissal before the industrial tribunal, requesting its nullity, her reinstatement in her job, as well as payment of wages due.
On December 6, 2022, the Colmar Court of Appeal rejected the employee’s request for reinstatement and limited certain compensation.
She considered, using the CPAM’s argument, that the reinstatement of the employee was impossible due to psychosocial risks at work, particularly linked to management and relations with the public.
The employee then filed a cassation appeal.
II. Means.
III. Solution.
The Court of Cassation partially overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that the arguments put forward to refuse reinstatement were insufficient and did not justify a material impossibility.
Therefore, the Court of Cassation judges that the reasons given by the court of appeal to refuse the reinstatement of the employee do not constitute an impossibility of reinstatement.
Indeed, the latter justifies the impossibility of reinstatement by psychosocial risks, relying on a 2017 medical report mentioning psychosocial risks within the employee’s service, while having recognized that the employer had failed in its security obligation due to moral harassment recognized at the same time.
Thus, the Colmar Court of Appeal considers that it is materially impossible to reinstate the employee due to the risk that she could commit a violent act, a medical certificate dated June 21, 2017 indicating this.
However, according to the Court of Cassation, these two points are contradictory: the impossibility of reinstatement was not sufficiently justified, because the court of appeal did not sufficiently take into account that the employer had failed in its obligation to safety, which led to a violation of legal texts relating to the obligation of safety and protection of employees.
As a result, the Court of Cassation overturns the judgment of the Colmar Court of Appeal and returns the case to the Metz Court of Appeal for re-examination.
IV. Analyse.
This judgment clarifies that in the event of dismissal recognized as void, the employer has the obligation to reinstate the employee who requests it, unless it proves a material impossibility, which has not been demonstrated here.
As a reminder, when the dismissal is declared void, the consequences on compensation are significant.
The minimum compensation due to the dismissed employee is much higher and in the event of multiple reasons, the judge must examine each of them, being able to moderate the compensation if one is justified, but without going below the minimum of six months. of salaries.
The employee also has the right to be reinstated, unless materially impossible, in which case he or she may claim eviction compensation corresponding to wages not received between notification of dismissal and reinstatement.
Thus, the judgment of September 4, 2024 is a continuation of previous case law concerning the obligation of reinstatement after a void dismissal, in connection with the employer’s security obligations.
In addition, the delay in initiating an internal investigation in this type of case, as highlighted in the judgment of March 23, 2022[[2]also constitutes a breach of this obligation, reinforcing the idea that the employer must act diligently to preserve the health and safety of employees.
Recent case law also specifies that the simple fact of having found a new job does not deprive the employee of their right to reinstatement.[[3].
However, reinstatement may be impossible if the business has disappeared[[4]or if the employee requests judicial termination of his employment contract for harassment[[5].
However, in a judgment of May 11, 2023 (n° 21-23.148 and n° 22-10.082), the Court of Cassation considered that the employee who requests the judicial termination of his contract and the nullity of his dismissal can if he waives his request for judicial termination during the same proceeding, obtain his reinstatement.
In total, the judgment of the Court of Cassation of September 4, 2024 strengthens the rights of employees in the face of invalid dismissals, by specifying the employer’s obligations in terms of reinstatement.
The decision highlights the increased responsibility of employers in managing psychosocial risks and complying with legal obligations regarding reintegration and remuneration.
Sources.
C. cass. 4 sept. 2024 n° 23-13.583
C. cass. July 6, 2022 n° 21-13.631
C. cass. 23 mars 2022, n° 20-23.272
Court of Cassation, civil, Social Chamber, March 23, 2022, 20-23.272, Unpublished – Légifrance[[6]
C. cass. May 11, 2023, n° 21-23.148 and n° 22-10.082
