Case 07-41845

Mrs. X was an employee of the Sochata Snecma company, which is a part of Snecma services, on the site of Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines. Mrs X was laid off on account of a disruption of the service following numerous work stoppages.  The Rambouillet employee claims court reversed her dismissal and ordered her reinstatement within the Snecma services society or the Snecma group, in a location close to her home due to her health status.

The Versailles Court of Appeal stated that the site most compatible with the employee’s health status was that of Corbeil, ordered her reinstatement on the Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines site and dismissed her request for a reinstatement within the larger Snecma company group.

The Court of Cassation held that the Court of Appeal violated article L. 122-45 and L. 230-2 of the Labour Code by ruling that reinstatement following a layoff (which had been voided due to such layoff’s violation of an employee’s right to health) was limited to the company within which the employee had been working and not the larger company group. The Court noted that, in the case of a layoff being declared void due to a violation of the employee’s fundamental right to health, such employee should be reinstated into his position or an equivalent position within the larger company group or, if health reasons justify it, into any of the group’s companies if the activities, the organization and the work site would allow for the transfer of the employees.

However, considering that this plea was based on a layoff voided under articles L.1132-1 and L. 1132-4 of the Labour Code, such obligation to reinstate resulting from the ordered continuance of the work contract did not extend to placement within the larger company group.

Thus, the Court rejected the appeal and condemned Mrs. X and the CGT Snecma services Saint-Quentin trade union to the legal costs.

“qu'en cas de nullité du licenciement pour atteinte au droit fondamental à la santé, le salarié doit être réintégré dans son emploi ou un emploi équivalent au sein de l'entreprise qui l'emploie ou, si des raisons de santé le justifient, dans toutes les entreprises du groupe auquel appartient l'employeur dont les activités, l'organisation et le lieu d'exploitation permettent d'effectuer la mutation de tout ou partie du personnel“

“that in the case of a layoff being declared void due to a violation of the fundamental right to health, the employee must be reinstated into his position or an equivalent position within the company which employs him or, if health reasons justify it, into all the group’s companies to which the employer belongs for which the activities, the organization and the exploitation site allow for the transfer of all or part of the employees”

“Mais attendu qu'après annulation d'un licenciement pour violation des dispositions des alinéas 1 et 5 de l'article L. 122-45, devenus les articles L. 1132-1 et L. 1132-4 du code du travail, l'obligation de réintégrationrésultant de la poursuite alors ordonnée du contrat de travail ne s'étend pas au groupe auquel appartient l'employeur ; que le moyen n'est pas fondé”

“But given that after declaring a layoff void due to a violation under the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 5 of article L. 122-45, which became articles L.1132-1 and L. 1132-4 of the Labour Code, the obligation to reinstate resulting from the ordered continuance of the work contract does not extend to the group which the employer belongs to; that the plea is not well-founded”