Labor tribunal judgments

To drive a little more nail, let us come to the figures mentioned about the appeal and the content of the decision of the court of the second degree.

Three out of four labor tribunal judgments are subject to a remedy, that is to say, conversely, in only one out of four cases, the decision of first instance becomes final. Let's bring this "one in four" of the "one in five" of the business that goes out of tiebreaker and let's take the leap. We would be tempted to infer that in fact only a very small part of the labor tribunal decisions made by the labor councilors alone do not involve any recourse, the vast majority being appealed or, more rarely of an appeal.

You could tax me in bad faith by retorting me that anyway, these decisions of first instance were mostly confirmed on appeal (54.8%) or cassation (80.1%).

On the one hand, the percentage of confirmation on appeal seems very low: one judgment out of two is. On the other hand, it is to forget, once again, that one can make say what one wants to statistics: the majority of the confirmations are partial confirmations and which says partial confirmation, said partial reversal. But the statistics are not fine enough to make the distinction here.

In addition, remember the phrase that I emphasized: with or without substitution of motifs.

What is pattern substitution? This is when the secondary court confirms the decision of first instance but with a different motivation. It recognizes that the judges of the first degree have arrived at the right solution but following an incorrect reasoning. Contrary to what one might think, this happens unfortunately very frequently (I have plenty of example in my file cabinet!).

Can it be reasonably stated afterwards that these figures are a pledge of competence of the prud'homal advisers and the quality of their decisions?

I leave you alone judges.

You will note, in conclusion, that the Keeper of the Seals proposes as an improvement of the functioning of the jurisdiction only an increase in the compensation of the labor councilors and not, for example, an obligation to labor law and civil procedure, a genuine control of their activity and an increase in the number of transplants.

In fact, the two major problems of the Industrial Tribunals still remain the cruel lack of jurisdiction of the Labor Court Advisers and the abnormally long delays in proceedings, in flagrant violation of the principle of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

PS: you will excuse my presentation oriented statistics that led me to a conclusion rather negative but what do you want, professional deformation requires, I had to bring the contradiction to the words of our Minister of Justice.

Remember that the requirement of a person or profession is worthy of the esteem and importance of being recognized (quote of my colleague Fantômette under comment 67 of this article by Eolas).

The cabinet in the print media in September

I voluntarily set aside (for the moment) cases of referral concerning the termination of the employment contract since this assumption excludes referral.

It is therefore logical that in the face of a clear breach by the employer, the court has no choice but to grant the employee's demands, which explains the high percentages found (71% and 81% ). Regarding the interim, the percentage of rejected applications is often the employees (poorly counseled or defending themselves) who seize the referral of a dispute while the latter is obviously incompetent to review (especially where there is a serious challenge).

What more to say if it is also, and this is important, that the figures announced also include (and especially) cases where the employee was partially successful. Thus, an employee who formulates several pecuniary claims and wins a case on only one for a derisory amount is still statistically considered to have had his requests favorably received by the court.

This is the sad reality that shows that these figures are not reliable.

As said, a few months ago, one of my colleagues on his blog, at the risk of shooting himself in the foot, the statistics (always the same) show that as a rule, a litigant gets more often only in favor of a lawyer. This is to forget the most important: the lawyer obtains, before the Labor Court, less often than a single employee what he asks because often his claims are more complex, more numerous and in the amount higher as I have been able to recall in this article , which is reflected on the part of the prud'homaux advisers by a certain reluctance to render a legally correct decision (when they are aware of it) but with sometimes heavy financial consequences for the employer.

However, the application of the law can (in principle) allow the spreading of moods. This is the whole problem of the place of fairness in law that my sister Marie-Laure Fouché mentioned in this article . And of course, as you might expect, non-professional magistrates love to slip equity in their decision, often at the risk of making the latter totally absurd in law.

Labor Council: some statistics

I echo a ministerial response from our Minister of Justice to a question asked by the deputy Christian Vanneste concerning the functioning of the Labor Courts, question asked on May 7th and answered, there is a few days, August 26th.

The complete texts of the questions and answers are available here .

The member wonders about the proportion of decisions favorable to the employee, knowing that with rare exceptions, it is he who seizes the Labor Court.

Indeed, the Labor Court has this particular in relation to the Court of Instance and the Tribunal de Grande Instance that it is always the same categories of people who are plaintiffs (the employee) and defendants (the employer) .

In summary, the member is astonished, even though the Conseil de Prud'hommes gives statistically more often the employee than the employer reason that only half of French people have a good opinion of the jurisdiction. In other words, despite the very high proportion of employees in France in relation to the number of employers, half of the population is not satisfied with the functioning of the tribunal prud'homale.

Hence his request for statistical data to the Garde des Sceaux and his questioning about the appropriateness of an in-depth reform of the jurisdiction.

The following figures are as follows:

  • 71% of the judgments welcomed the requests on the merits
  • 81% of the judgments welcomed the applications for interim measures
  • 18.6% of the judgments were rendered in the tiebreaker hearing, 63.4% of which answered the employee's requests
  • 62.5% of judgments were appealed and 11% of an appeal in cassation for confirmation rates of 54.8% on appeal and 80.1% in cassation, with or without substitution of motifs (I emphasize that this seemingly innocuous detail is actually of great importance)

The Guardian of the Seals deduces that "these rates do not allow to doubt the quality of the decisions rendered by these jurisdictions". It advocates, as an improvement, after the suppression of 62 labor tribunals, including the increase in the compensation of labor councilors. Remember that the hourly rate of the vacation is a little over eight euros.

What do I think of these figures?

Well, I think that as usual, with our dear Keeper of the Seals and as already recalled Eolas, in this article in which he awarded him his famous Busiris award for the alleged success of the law on recidivism and the penalties floor, we can say what we want to statistics.

Let us take these figures and examine them more closely by sticking especially to the specificity of the procedure prud'homale .

Remember that the latter is apparently simple since it is sufficient, to seize the Board of Labor, to fill out a simple pre-printed form.

It should also be remembered that, apart from being a furious, furious litigant, the majority of our fellow citizens do not like to get into the courts, even civil ones. Thus, the employee will consider entering the jurisdiction only after several unsuccessful attempts to find an amicable agreement with his employer and for requests that for him "sink" as a non-payment of salary or additional salary or the absence of issuance of documents (pay slips or documents of rupture).