Background
M. [N] was initially hired as a fleet captain by SAGTM. His employment contract was later transferred first to Caraib ferry rent and then to Compagnie martiniquaise de navigation. He ultimately served as operations director.
After taking sick leave on April 23, 2019, M. [N] was declared fit for work on September 8, 2020, by the occupational physician for seafarers. He did not return to his position and was dismissed on February 4, 2021. Following an unsuccessful attempt at administrative conciliation concerning recognition of his alleged medical unfitness, he challenged the dismissal and sought compensation for notice, severance, unfair dismissal, unpaid wages, and moral harassment. The Fort-de-France Court of Appeal rejected his claims, and he appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. It held that the Court of Appeal properly classified M. [N] as a seafarer because, although employed as operations director, he regularly served aboard vessels as captain in carrying out his duties. He therefore did not work exclusively ashore and performed activity directly connected with vessel operations within the meaning of the Transport Code.
The Court also upheld the finding that only the occupational physician for seafarers was competent to issue the relevant fitness or unfitness determination. That physician’s September 8, 2020 opinion declared M. [N] medically fit for his position without restrictions. His argument based on the regulatory threshold for occasional onboard personnel was inadmissible because it was raised for the first time on cassation and involved mixed questions of fact and law. The remaining arguments failed, so the dismissal-related and associated monetary claims remained rejected.
Key Takeaways
- An employee with a primarily managerial or shore-based title may retain seafarer status when the employee regularly performs onboard duties directly connected with vessel operations.
- For covered seafarers, the occupational health service for seafarers—and its physician—has authority to determine occupational fitness or unfitness.
- A new argument requiring factual findings, such as whether onboard service exceeded a regulatory duration threshold, cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time before the Court of Cassation.
Why It Matters
The ruling emphasizes that seafarer status turns on the employee’s actual duties, not merely the job title, office location, contractual wording, or administrative classification. Regular service aboard vessels as captain was sufficient to connect an operations director’s work directly to vessel operations.
For maritime employers and employees, the decision also confirms the importance of the specialized seafarers’ occupational-health process. An unrestricted fitness opinion from the competent maritime physician cannot be recast as addressing navigation alone when the lower court finds that it declared the employee fit for the position itself.