An employee’s private life and personal life are not one and the same
Null dismissal versus dismissal without real and serious cause. In principle, a dismissal carried out in violation of a fundamental right is null and void. In that case, the employee is compensated outside of any compensation scale and may request reinstatement. Where the dismissal is merely without real and serious cause, in the absence of reinstatement, the compensation is capped by a scale (the so-called « Macron Scale »). Private life versus personal life. Respect for private life is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. As regards personal life, case law specifies that a ground based on personal life cannot justify a disciplinary dismissal, unless it constitutes a breach by the employee of an obligation arising from his employment contract. In this ruling, the Court of Cassation specifies that conduct of the employee unrelated to the performance of his employment contract, even if it falls within his personal life and is not capable of constituting misconduct, does not necessarily fall within his private life. In this case, a bus driver was subject to an identity check after his working day, while he was on the public highway in his vehicle in possession of a bag containing cannabis resin. The employee was dismissed for gross misconduct, for « remarks and conduct seriously damaging the company’s image and incompatible with the employer’s strict safety obligation towards both its employees and the passengers it transports ». Intimacy as a distinguishing factor. According to the Advocate General, the term private life « designates a genuine public freedom, to be reserved for the protection of the home, of correspondence and of one’s emotional life, that is to say the intimacy of private life ». In this case, the High Court notes that the employee’s conduct, which occurred in the context of his personal life, had not taken place within the intimacy of his private life. The dismissal is therefore without real and serious cause (and not null). (Cass. soc. 25 Sept. 2024, no. 22-20.672, FS-B)
Setting of objectives: in French or unenforceable!
The Court of Cassation reiterates that any document containing obligations for the employee, or provisions of which knowledge is necessary for the performance of his work, must be drafted in French. Accordingly, documents setting out the objectives necessary for the determination of the contractual variable remuneration must, in order to be enforceable against the employee, be drafted in French. Failing that, the employee would be entitled to claim payment of the entirety of his bonus. (Cass. soc. 2 Oct. 2024 no. 23-14.429, FD)
Annual Social Security ceiling (PASS) increased
The 2025 Social Security financing bill provides for an increase of the amount of the annual Social Security ceiling (PASS) of 1.7% as from 1 January 2025, namely: 1 PASS = €47,100; 2 PASS = €94,200; 6 PASS = €282,600; 10 PASS = €471,000. The quarterly ceiling is therefore set at €11,775 and the monthly ceiling at €3,925. (2025 Social Security financing bill)
Increase of the minimum wage (SMIC) as from 1 November 2024
On 1 October 2024, during his general policy statement before the National Assembly, Prime Minister Michel Barnier announced that the SMIC would be increased by 2% as from 1 November 2024. The decree of 23 October 2024 thus raises the gross hourly SMIC to €11.88, i.e. a gross monthly amount of €1,801.83. (Decree no. 2024-951 of 23 October 2024)
Pension revaluation postponed by six months
In principle revalued each year on 1 January according to the average value of the consumer price index (excluding tobacco), in 2025 the revaluation of pensions will be postponed by six months. The revaluation will therefore take effect on 1 July 2025. (2025 Social Security financing bill)
Reduction of the ceiling for Social Security daily allowances (IJSS)
The amount of the ceiling for calculating daily allowances is currently 1.8 times the SMIC. It would be lowered to 1.4 times the SMIC. The employer’s supplementary share would increase accordingly. (2025 Social Security financing bill)
Trade union discrimination, the right to evidence and the GDPR
In matters of discrimination, the disclosure of other employees’ pay slips for the purposes of comparison in order to establish discrimination is lawful, provided in particular that the data minimisation principle imposed by Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is respected. The Court of Cassation reiterates that: it is for the judge to ascertain whether the disclosure of the data is indispensable to the exercise of the right to evidence and proportionate to the aim pursued; the judge must limit the scope of the production of documents and their nature; the judge must ensure compliance with the principle of minimisation of personal data, by ordering the redaction, on the documents concerned by the disclosure, of all personal data not indispensable to the exercise of the right to evidence and proportionate to the aim pursued. The information left visible must be adequate, relevant and strictly limited to what is indispensable for the comparison between employees. (Cass. 2e civ. 3 October 2024, no. 21-20.979)
Clarifications on limitation periods in employment law
The following is time-barred after 2 years insofar as it relates to the performance of the employment contract: the action for payment of damages for disloyal performance of the employment contract; the action for payment of a lump-sum indemnity for concealed work, which arises upon termination of the contract due to the employer’s failure to perform its obligations. The following is time-barred after 3 years insofar as it relates to wage claims: the claim relating to the payment into the retirement savings plan of sums corresponding to RTT (working time reduction) days; the indemnity for untaken RTT days. The following is time-barred after 5 years insofar as it is based on moral harassment: the action relating to the termination of the employment contract where it is based on moral harassment. (Cass. soc. 4 September 2024, no. 23-13.131; 22-22.860)