Background
SNF, which employs more than 1,400 people, has a 20-member social and economic committee (CSE). In February 2022, the CSE decided to record its meetings to facilitate preparation of the minutes. Believing that the minutes did not faithfully reflect the discussions, SNF sought access to the recordings, but the elected representatives refused. An ex parte order authorizing the seizure and copying of certain recordings was later withdrawn, and that withdrawal was affirmed on appeal.
Beginning in May 2023, SNF made its own recordings of meetings of the CSE and its health, safety, and working-conditions commission. The CSE and two representatives brought expedited proceedings seeking an injunction against any such recording. The Lyon Court of Appeal prohibited SNF from recording the meetings, subject to a coercive fine, and SNF appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation dismissed SNF’s appeal. It held that, under Articles L. 2315-34 and D. 2315-27 of the Labour Code, recording or stenography of CSE meetings has the sole purpose of preparing the body’s minutes. Preparing those minutes is the exclusive prerogative of the CSE secretary.
SNF recorded the meetings to verify the accuracy of the minutes, document how the meetings proceeded, and create evidence of what participants said. Those purposes fell outside the statutory purpose of assisting the secretary in preparing the minutes. Because the recordings collected representatives’ personal data and SNF had not shown a legitimate interest establishing their necessity under Article 6(1) of the GDPR, the appellate court was entitled to find a manifestly unlawful disturbance and enjoin the recordings.
Key Takeaways
- French law permits recording or stenography of CSE meetings only to facilitate preparation of the official minutes.
- Responsibility for preparing the CSE’s minutes belongs exclusively to the committee secretary.
- An employer cannot rely on the statutory recording provisions to record meetings for monitoring, verification, or evidence-gathering purposes without a lawful GDPR basis.
Why It Matters
The ruling limits an employer’s ability to treat the Labour Code’s recording provision as a general authorization to preserve an independent account of employee-representative meetings. The intended purpose of the recording—not merely the fact that the law contemplates recording—determines whether the practice is permissible.
Employers recording CSE proceedings must therefore align the recording with preparation of the official minutes and separately satisfy applicable data-protection requirements. Recordings made to police the minutes or build an evidentiary record may be halted through expedited judicial proceedings.