Analyse
14 juillet 2021

Une illustration du pouvoir disciplinaire de l’employeur en cas de non-respect des règles internes de l’entreprise (En anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Enforcement & Court Decisions

 

On 11 March 2021, the Court of Appeal of Angers issued an interesting decision on the consequences of a non-compliance with internal company procedures by an employee, ruling that did not constitute a serious misconduct but that such misconduct likely to give grounds for a real and serious cause for dismissal under French labor law[i].

I. The employee committed by not following the internal policies a fault of such a nature as to give a real and serious cause to his dismissal

In France, an employer can only dismiss an employee if he can prove a real and serious cause for such dismissal[ii], i.e., an objective cause which is sufficiently important to justify the termination of the employment contract[iii].

Serious cause for dismissal should not be confused with the notion of serious misconduct, which is defined by case law as facts constituting a breach of obligations resulting from the employment contract of such importance that they make it impossible for the employee to remain in the company[iv].

In the case at hand, a company dismissed its sales and marketing manager of an armament company for serious misconduct, on the grounds he had arranged a meeting to sign an international contract with a distributor based in the United Arab Emirates, without respecting the internal control procedure in force, which provided for an obligation to alert the management and due to the fact that the contract was not validated either in form or in substance, thus exposing the company and its managers to particularly high risks[v].

Whereas in the first instance, the court had considered that the dismissal was devoid of real and serious cause, the Court of Appeal of Angers, on the contrary, judged that the sales and marketing manager, with regard to his level of responsibility and the particular nature of the activity of the company, had committed by not going through the validation process, a fault of such a nature as to give a real and serious cause to the dismissal[vi].

But, on the other hand, the Court of Appeal considered that there was no reason to qualify the dismissal of serious misconduct since, even if the breach committed was a faulty abstention in view of the context, it did not reflect any bad faith or disloyalty on the part of the sales and marketing director and did not have the effect of putting the company in a situation of serious and immediate danger so that it was impossible to maintain his employment contract[vii].

II. An illustration of the exercise of the employer’s disciplinary power in case of breaches of internal policies

Beyond the employment law aspect of this decision, this decision has great consequences regarding the enforcement and execution of compliance requirements resulting from the law n°2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, fight against corruption and modernization of economic life (called “Sapin 2” law) and it makes it an interesting decision for the fight against corruption.

Indeed, article 17 of this law requires, mainly companies with more than 500 employees and revenues of more than 100 million euros, to take measures to prevent and detect the commission of acts of corruption or influence peddling among which the establishment of a disciplinary system allowing the company’s employees to be sanctioned in the event of a violation of the company’s code of conduct[viii].

This decision is thus an illustration of the exercise of the employer’s disciplinary power in case of breaches of internal anti-corruption and influence peddling procedures. It is a reminder of the importance of the prevention system and the zero tolerance that should be applied in view of the risks incurred by companies, as the Court of Appeal underlines by specifying that the sales and marketing director committed “a clumsiness revealing a poor appreciation of the extent of his responsibilities which could have had unfortunate consequences for the company”[ix].

While some may regret that the judges did not find serious misconduct in the failure to comply with internal compliance procedures, the fact remains that the decision reflects an important consideration of the latter. In any event, this is the illustration that compliance requirements take an ever more important place.

Contenu similaire

Événement
16 mai 2024
Lutte contre la corruption en Amérique Latine : Leçons de la dernière décennie (webinaire en...
A l'occasion des Semaines de l'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes organisées par le Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères,...
Publication
15 mai 2024
LIR 6e édition : Focus sur les CJIPs ADP INGENIERIE et SEVES Group/SEDIVER
Navacelle contribue à la sixième édition du magazine The Legal Industry Reviews, en mettant l'accent sur les deux dernières Conventions...
Analyse
14 mai 2024
Nouveau guide pratique de l’AFA relatif aux opérations de parrainage et de mécénat des entreprises...
Le 26 mars 2024, l’Agence Française Anticorruption (“AFA”) a publié son nouveau guide pratique relatif à la sécurisation des opérations...
Analyse
6 mai 2024
Contours de la future autorité européenne de lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux
La nouvelle autorité de lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme sera basée à Francfort et...
Revue de presse
26 avril 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 22 avril 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur l’adoption par le Parlement européen de la directive sur le devoir de...
Vidéo
25 avril 2024
Webinaire : Droit des sanctions économiques – similitudes et différences des approches américaine et française...
Roxane Castro, invitée par le Philadelphia Chapter of the French American Chamber of Commerce (FACC Philadelphia) et Buchanan Ingersoll &...
Analyse
22 avril 2024
Retour sur les CJIP respectivement conclues fin 2023 par ADP INGENIERIE et SEVES Group/SEDIVER pour...
En validant les CJIP conclues entre le parquet national financier (PNF) ainsi que ADP INGENIERIE (ADPI) d’une part, et SEVES...
Revue de presse
19 avril 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 15 avril 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la publication du bilan 2023 de TRACFIN sur les déclarations de soupçons...
Analyse
16 avril 2024
Rappel du “dispositif anti-cadeaux” applicable aux acteurs opérant dans le milieu de la santé dans...
Le “dispositif anti-cadeaux” prévu par le code de la santé publique interdit aux acteurs opérant dans le milieu de la...
Revue de presse
12 avril 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 8 avril 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur le procès des Panama Papers ouvert ce lundi 8 avril, la condamnation...
Revue de presse
29 mars 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 25 mars 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur l’ouverture de procédures à l’encontre de Google, Apple et Meta par la...
Revue de presse
22 mars 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 18 mars 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur le rapport de la Cour des comptes concernant la situation financière de...