Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
82-60614 Généré par l'IA

Employer Challenge to Election Schedule Setting Authority

Numéro de cause 82-60614
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An employer contested a lower court order setting the dates for works council member elections between December 10th and 17th, 1982, arguing that in the absence of a pre-electoral agreement, the employer alone had the authority to set the election schedule. The high court rejected the appeal, reasoning that the relevant labor code article, as amended, explicitly grants the judge of first instance, ruling in summary proceedings, the authority to set the modalities and schedule of electoral operations when no agreement can be reached between the business head and the representative trade unions.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE L 433-9 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL, ARTICLE 848 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, ARTICLE L 433-10 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL, ARTICLE R 433-6 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL; Employer Challenge to Election Schedule Setting Authority: The high court rejected the appeal, reasoning that the relevant labor code article, as amended, explicitly grants the judge of first instance, ruling in summary proceedings, the authority to set the modalities and schedule of electoral operations when no agreement can be reached between the business head and the representative trade unions.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
élection syndicale horaire de travail droit électoral décisions incidentes moyens invocables élection périodique

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE L 433-9 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL
The court cited this article as the basis for the trial judge's authority to set the election dates in the absence of an agreement.
ARTICLE 848 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE
This procedural article was cited in the grounds of appeal, but the court rejected the appeal, implying that the procedure used (referés) was valid under the applicable labor law.
ARTICLE L 433-10 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL
This article was cited in the grounds of appeal, but the court implicitly rejected the argument by upholding the decision based on Art. L 433-9.
ARTICLE R 433-6 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL
This article was cited in the grounds of appeal, but the court implicitly rejected the argument by upholding the decision based on Art. L 433-9.
Généré par l'IA
82-60327, 82-60357
Employer Challenge to Employee Representative Election Validity and Timing
05-60353
Challenge to Workplace Election Results and Pre-Electoral Agreement Validity
89-61321
Union and Employee Appeal of Timeliness of Challenge to Validity of Works Council Elections
88-60381
Employer Appeal Regarding Invalidation of Central Works Council Election Due to Timing Discrepancy
95-60875
Union Challenges to Works Council Election Refusal Based on Collective Agreement Interpretation

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE L 433-9 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL

The court cited this article as the basis for the trial judge's authority to set the election dates in the absence of an agreement.

ARTICLE 848 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE

This procedural article was cited in the grounds of appeal, but the court rejected the appeal, implying that the procedure used (referés) was valid under the applicable labor law.

ARTICLE L 433-10 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL

This article was cited in the grounds of appeal, but the court implicitly rejected the argument by upholding the decision based on Art. L 433-9.

ARTICLE R 433-6 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL

This article was cited in the grounds of appeal, but the court implicitly rejected the argument by upholding the decision based on Art. L 433-9.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 848 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, L 433-10 ET R 433-6 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL :

ATTENDU QUE LES GRANDS MAGASINS DE LA SAMARITAINE REPROCHENT A L'ORDONNANCE ATTAQUEE, RENDUE EN LA FORME DES REFERES, D'AVOIR DECIDE QUE LES ELECTIONS DES MEMBRES DU COMITE D'ENTREPRISE SE DEROULERAIENT AU COURS DE LA PERIODE DU 10 AU 17 DECEMBRE 1982, ALORS QU'EN L'ABSENCE D'ACCORD PREELECTORAL LA FIXATION DE LA DATE DES ELECTIONS RELEVE UNIQUEMENT DE L'APPRECIATION DE L'EMPLOYEUR ;

MAIS ATTENDU QUE L'ARTICLE L 433-9 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL, COMPLETE PAR LA LOI N 82-915 DU 28 OCTOBRE 1982, PREVOIT QUE LES MODALITES D'ORGANISATION ET DE DEROULEMENT DES OPERATIONS ELECTORALES CONCERNANT LES MEMBRES DES COMITES D'ENTREPRISE, SUR LESQUELLES AUCUN ACCORD ENTRE LE CHEF D'ENTREPRISE ET LES ORGANISATIONS SYNDICALES REPRESENTATIVES N'A PU, COMME EN L'ESPECE, INTERVENIR, PEUVENT ETRE FIXEES PAR UNE DECISION DU JUGE D'INSTANCE STATUANT EN DERNIER RESSORT EN LA FORME DES REFERES ;

QU'AINSI LE MOYEN EST MAL FONDE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE LE JUGEMENT RENDU LE 24 NOVEMBRE 1982 PAR LE TRIBUNAL D'INSTANCE DU 1ER ARRONDISSEMENT DE PARIS.