Background
Valdepharm, a pharmaceutical manufacturer employing approximately 570 people, opened mandatory negotiations with its representative unions in February 2021. At meetings on April 1 and 13, the company proposed a 0.8% general wage increase, increases to shift and transportation allowances, and a €30 increase in the vacation allowance, bringing it to €1,850.
Valdepharm withdrew those proposals at the April 27 meeting and confirmed the withdrawal on May 5. The company’s own record of disagreement instead identified other measures it intended to implement unilaterally. CGT Valdepharm and Sud Chimie sued to compel implementation of the withdrawn increases retroactive to April 1 and sought damages for breach of a unilateral commitment and failure to negotiate in good faith. The Rouen Court of Appeal rejected their claims, and the unions appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. Under articles L. 2242-1, L. 2242-4, and L. 2242-5 of the Labor Code, an employer may not generally make unilateral decisions on subjects under negotiation while mandatory bargaining remains underway. If bargaining ends without agreement, the record of disagreement must state the parties’ final proposals and the measures the employer intends to apply unilaterally.
Accordingly, proposals made during mandatory compensation negotiations do not constitute a binding unilateral employer commitment when the employer withdraws them during the negotiations and does not include them among the unilateral measures recorded at the end of bargaining. The Court also upheld the finding that Valdepharm had not acted disloyally: the unions had not accepted the proposals before their withdrawal, and the employer attributed the withdrawal to events arising during negotiations that weakened the company’s economic position.
Key Takeaways
- An employer’s compensation proposal made during mandatory collective bargaining is not, by itself, a binding unilateral commitment.
- A proposal withdrawn before bargaining ends and omitted from the employer’s stated unilateral measures cannot be judicially enforced on that basis.
- Withdrawal was not abusive where the unions had not previously accepted the proposal and the employer relied on intervening economic developments.
Why It Matters
The ruling distinguishes bargaining proposals from enforceable unilateral employer commitments. It preserves an employer’s ability to revise or withdraw proposals while mandatory negotiations remain open, subject to the duty to conduct those negotiations loyally.
For unions and employers, the decision makes the final record of disagreement especially important: the measures identified there as those the employer intends to apply unilaterally determine which post-negotiation commitments may be enforceable.