“Procedural flaws must not take precedence over substance”—this was one of the guiding principles of the Macron administration when it presented its executive orders reforming the Labor Code.
In other words, an employer should not be (excessively) penalized on the grounds that it failed to comply with a complex and restrictive procedural requirement, when its decision to terminate the employment contract is justified on its merits.
Based on this conviction, pursuant to Order No. 2017-1387 of September 22, 2017, and its implementing decree No. 2017-1702 of December 15, 2017, the government has amended the rules regarding the grounds for dismissal.
The new regulations have been in effect since December 18, 2017.
A brief overview of the rules that have been in effect to date (1) will help us appreciate the benefits of the reform (2).
1. Rules on the grounds for termination prior to the reform
According to Article L.1232-6 of the Labor Code, the termination letter must include a description of the reasons for the termination of the employment contract.
This description was of significant importance in the labor arbitration proceedings initiated by the employee, who was challenging his dismissal.
In assessing the validity of the termination, the judge relied exclusively on the terms of the termination letter, which, it was said, “defines the scope of the dispute.”
According to established case law, the inadequacy of the grounds stated in the termination letter was treated not as a procedural irregularity but as a substantive one: the termination was deemed to lack real and serious cause.
The employer was unable to sway the judge’s decision by providing, during the proceedings, further details and additional grounds demonstrating the validity of the termination.
This case law required the company to exercise caution when drafting the termination letter.
It should be noted that a termination deemed to lack real and serious cause entitles the employee to damages which, according to the scale set forth in Article L.1235-3 of the Labor Code applicable to terminations issued after September 22, 2017, range from 0.5 to 20 months’ salary, depending on the size of the company and the employee’s length of service.
2. Rules on the grounds for termination of employment, effective December 18, 2017
To ensure that any lack of precision in the wording of the termination letter no longer automatically results in a substantive penalty, the grounds for terminating the employment contract may be clarified retroactively by the employer, either on its own initiative or at the employee’s request.
This capacity for precision is subject to strict formal requirements.
According to Implementing Decree No. 2017-1702, which has been in effect since December 18, 2017, an employee must submit a request for clarification by registered mail with return receipt requested within fifteen days of receiving notice of termination.
If the company so wishes, it must provide the requested details within fifteen days by certified mail with return receipt requested or by hand-delivered letter with a receipt.
If an employer wishes, on its own initiative, to clarify the terms of the termination letter, it must do so in the same manner within fifteen days of the notice of termination.
If the employee does not ask the employer to specify the reasons for the termination, an insufficient statement of reasons in the termination letter no longer, on its own, renders the termination without valid and serious cause.
This deficiency constitutes a procedural irregularity entitling the employee to compensation equal to one month’s salary.
We should not overestimate the impact of these new provisions.
Employers must always exercise caution when drafting a termination letter.
There are two reasons for reaching this conclusion.
First reason: The possibility of retroactively amending the termination letter is limited to providing clarifications and does not allow for the addition of new grounds, as envisaged in the draft ordinance. In other words, the employer still cannot cite reasons other than those mentioned in the termination letter.
Second reason: In the event that an employee requests further clarification, if the judge finds that the grounds, as stated in the termination letter and, if applicable, in the response letter to the employee, remain too vague, the judge will continue to penalize the lack of sufficient grounds by awarding the employee damages for termination without real and serious cause.
Isabelle Le Coq, Andrea Linne, Noémi Schwab