Employee Dismissal During Unspecified Trial Period in Fixed-Term Contract
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn employee hired under a fixed-term contract for four weeks was dismissed after two weeks, with the employer claiming the dismissal occurred during a stipulated trial period. The employer contended that although the contract itself did not mention a trial period, the applicable collective bargaining agreement for road transport workers provided for a fifteen-day trial period, which permitted the dismissal under the Labor Code. The court rejected this appeal, reasoning that the mere existence of a trial period in the collective agreement was insufficient to prove that such a period was expressly agreed upon for this specific fixed-term contract, meaning the employer could not validly rely on the trial period exception to justify the early termination.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE L 122-1 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL; Employee Dismissal During Unspecified Trial Period in Fixed-Term Contract: The employer contended that although the contract itself did not mention a trial period, the applicable collective bargaining agreement for road transport workers provided for a fifteen-day trial period, which permitted the dismissal under the Labor Code. The court rejected this appeal, reasoning that the mere existence of a trial period in the collective agreement was insufficient to prove that such a period was expressly agreed upon for this specific fixed-term contract, meaning the employer could not validly rely on the trial period exception to justify the early termination.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThis article was cited by the appellant in support of their argument regarding the validity of the trial period, but the court rejected the appeal based on the facts related to the contract's stipulation, not directly applying this article to justify the final rejection in the dispositive.
This is the final order disposing of the case by rejecting the appeal.
Texte complet
ATTENDU QUE M X... QUI AVAIT ETE EMBAUCHE PAR LA SOCIETE TRANSLITTORAL PAR CONTRAT A DUREE DETERMINEE DU 25 MAI 1979 AU 23 JUIN SUIVANT A ETE LICENCIE LE 9 JUIN ;
QUE L'EMPLOYEUR, QUI AVAIT FAIT VALOIR QUE LE LICENCIEMENT ETAIT INTERVENU AU COURS DE LA PERIODE D'ESSAI, FAIT GRIEF A LA DECISION ATTAQUEE DE L'AVOIR CONDAMNE A PAYER A M Y... EQUIVALENTS AUX SALAIRES RESTANT A COURIR, AUX MOTIFS QUE LE CONTRAT DE TRAVAIL NE STIPULAIT PAS DE PERIODE D'ESSAI, ALORS QUE CELUI-CI SE REFERANT A LA CONVENTION COLLECTIVE NATIONALE DES TRANSPORTEURS ROUTIERS QUI PREVOIT UNE PERIODE D'ESSAI DE QUINZE JOURS, L'EMPLOYEUR ETAIT EN DROIT DE S'EN PREVALOIR CONFORMEMENT AUX DISPOSITIONS DE L'ARTICLE L 122-1 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL ;
MAIS ATTENDU QUE LE CONTRAT DE TRAVAIL DE M X... ETAIT CONCLU POUR LA DUREE DETERMINEE DE QUATRE SEMAINES, SANS PRECISER QUE LES DEUX PREMIERES ETAIENT EFFECTUEES A TITRE D'ESSAI, QUE LE SEUL FAIT QUE LA CONVENTION COLLECTIVE PREVOIT UNE PERIODE D'ESSAI NE SUFFIT PAS A APPORTER LA PREUVE QU'ELLE AIT ETE CONVENUE EN L'ESPECE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE LE JUGEMENT RENDU LE 12 MARS 1980 PAR LE CONSEIL DE PRUD'HOMMES DE BOULOGNE-SUR-MER.