Employers have obligations which, if they do not respect them, expose them to sanctions by the courts.
Lots of rules govern the world of work. Some know them like the back of their hand – both on the management and employee side – and play with their rights and duties, while others have only partial knowledge, or even none, due to a lack of interest or information. However, many provisions exist to regulate work practice on both sides.
One of the main points of disagreement between employees and management is often working hours. If this is set in France at 35 hours per week, in certain professions, the weekly hours go beyond, which can be compensated financially or with additional days of rest at the legal minimum.
On the other hand, what the Labor Code does not regulate is the quantity of work to be carried out over a given period of time. Impossible, truly, to create a precise framework. The law simply states that it must be “reasonable”, without further guidance. However, a company can be outside the law on the subject, as the courts have ruled.
Every year, many employees have an annual interview with their manager(s). On this occasion, an assessment of the year is drawn up and future objectives are set. But there is a mandatory question to ask any employee: ask them about their workload and its fit with their personal life. This can be very simple. A written question such as “Is your workload suitable?” is enough. If he does not do so, the boss is failing in his obligation of safety and protection of the physical and mental health of workers, in accordance with the law (texts here And here).
In mid-April, the Court of Cassation found guilty of these breaches an employer sued by one of its former employees who had been dismissed. The individual contested his dismissal before the industrial tribunal, citing in particular a heavy daily workload. If this was not accepted by the judges (help had notably been offered to him by his superior), they raised a point: the workload had not been mentioned during the annual interview. A mistake in the eyes of the courts which resulted in the company being ordered to pay €3,000 to its former employee.