Background
Lille Métropole Véhicules Industriels hired Mr. [E] as a senior technician on January 31, 2014. After a medical examination, he was declared unfit for his position on June 26, 2020. The company dismissed him on August 4, 2020, citing his medical unfitness and the impossibility of redeploying him.
Mr. [E] brought claims before the labor court concerning the termination of his employment. On November 29, 2024, the Douai Court of Appeal held that the dismissal lacked a real and serious cause, awarded him damages, and ordered the employer to reimburse France Travail for unemployment benefits paid to him, up to six months of benefits. Lille Métropole V.I. appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation dismissed the employer’s appeal. It held that, under Article L. 2314-37 of the Labor Code, when a principal member of the social and economic committee is temporarily absent for any reason, an eligible substitute member must replace that member, with priority given to a substitute elected in the same category from the same union list.
The committee’s meeting minutes showed that the principal representative for the first employee college was absent and was not replaced. Only the opinion of the principal representative for the second college was obtained. The Court therefore agreed with the Court of Appeal that the consultation was irregular and that the resulting dismissal lacked a real and serious cause.
Because that defect was sufficient to sustain the judgment, the Court found the employer’s remaining arguments about its redeployment evidence and the interpretation of its July 20, 2020 letter ineffective: those arguments challenged only additional, nonessential grounds of the appellate decision. The Court also rejected the employer’s first ground without a detailed opinion because it was manifestly incapable of supporting reversal.
Key Takeaways
- When a principal social and economic committee member is temporarily absent, the statutory substitution rules must be followed before the committee gives its opinion on redeploying an employee who is medically unfit.
- Obtaining an opinion only from the other principal committee member did not constitute a valid consultation when the absent representative had not been replaced.
- The defective consultation was sufficient to render the dismissal one without a real and serious cause, making challenges to additional findings about the redeployment search immaterial.
Why It Matters
The decision makes compliance with employee-representation procedures consequential in medical-unfitness dismissals. Employers must ensure not merely that the social and economic committee is consulted, but that its composition complies with the Labor Code’s substitution rules when a principal representative is absent.
A failure at that stage can invalidate the justification for dismissal regardless of disputes over whether the employer otherwise conducted a genuine redeployment search. Here, the employer remained liable for damages, reimbursement of up to six months of unemployment benefits, costs, and €3,000 to the employee under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.