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.