Expected year priceearnings ratios are reasonableA scenario that the two strings do not support800 billion today approximately 13 of GDPThe day to day promises to remain a marked date of a white stone in the Spanish basque countryAirlines the back wall push their purchasesAbundance of goods does not affect the proverb This would be an investment for the futureThe Korea of the North comes to lose faceIn total the Group spends 70 of its R D budget abroadProvided that it meets more and more strong environmental constraintsCandidates for voluntary leaving employees cannot blame the employer does not have sought to reclassify them.
News
July 24, 2008, the Renault company press announced its decision to reduce the costs of structure of 10 through a plan of voluntary departures, referred to as "the staff adjustment plan". Resulting in the loss of 6,000 jobs, about 1,000 in the only institution of Sandouville and 3,000 on ten other sites located on French territory. Following the consultations of rigour of the central Committee of enterprise and establishment committees, the plan was being implemented. Immediately, four unions seized the tribunal de grande instance (TGI), in chambers, to quash the plan and to ban to Renault deal envisaged failures as long as a reclassification plan was not implemented.
The point of view of the judges
By judgment of December 12, 2008, the EBU rejected the request of the trade union organizations. They therefore appealed. For them, indeed, of Renault is other than a circumvention strategy, a hidden redundancies to branch to escape liability if measures provided by law to protect the employees, in particular, the need to facilitate the reclassification of laid-off employees.
The direction of Renault refutes this accusation: it is not question here of dismissal but a measure taken as part of a plan of safeguarding of employment (PSE). However, the principle of the PES is to explore and implement all the solutions to avoid layoffs. It is only in the hypothesis where, notwithstanding the voluntary departures, there would be still jobs to be deleted that should apply the rules of the collective redundancies.
It recalls that the courts have already had the opportunity to clarify, very logically, that the reclassification was inconsistent with the voluntary departure (CA Lyon, February 16, 2005). The issue of the reclassification does not arise when it is sufficient for the employee not to be candidate at the outset to be retained in his post!
The Court of appeal of Versailles valid, overall, this reasoning. It nevertheless noted in passing that the method chosen by the management through the press has been criticized by the CGT, but that it is having reached no legal consequences, it will focus not on this faux pas.
Otherwise, she said, there is nothing wrong with the procedure followed: the bodies representing staff were consulted, voluntary departure plan was accompanied by several measures of the starters, management has reserved the possibility to suspend, stop or reduce the measures based on the passage of time, in a Word as in cent, there was no attempt to fraud on the law. The Court of appeal therefore confirms the judgment of the TGI of Nanterre (CA Versailles, 14, 1 April 2009, no. 09/01.005).
Consequences for the company
This decision comes to remind companies considering downsizing plan for the employment protection does not necessarily internal reclassification measures therefore and it is the indispensable condition it does not layoffs. The employer may put in place a plan of quits in a PES once he consults the EC as a collective dismissal (Cass. Soc., October 11, 2006)
This plan, colloquially called "open window", is a panacea Not necessarily because companies are likely to go than they would have liked to hold and to keep those they would have preferred to see go. This is why some companies, while putting in place a call to volunteerism, reserve the right to refuse. It is valid provided that indicate the conditions of a refusal to respect them (Cass. Soc., May 31, 2006).