The Rebound APLD scheme is now up and running
The French 2025 Finance Act (law no. 2025-127 of 14 February 2025) has introduced a temporary new part-time work scheme: the Rebound APLD (Art. 193). Against a backdrop of worsening economic conditions and the gradual phase-out of the initial long-term part-time work scheme (“APLD” in the French acronym), the aim is to keep employees of distressed companies in employment.
Employers may thus take advantage of this scheme, subject to the conclusion of an establishment, company or group-wide collective agreement or to the conclusion of an extended branch-wide collective agreement. Companies wishing to benefit from the Rebound APLD under a branch-wide agreement must draw up a unilateral document, on which the social and economic committee (“CSE” in the French acronym) must be consulted beforehand. The law lays down the minimum mandatory content for this document.
A decree dated 14 April 2025 (no. 2025-338, JO 15 April 2025) sets out the terms of application, including the terms governing eligibility for and use of the scheme. It also defines the administrative authority’s powers to examine applications and monitor the use of the scheme, as well as the conditions for granting the Rebound long-term part-time work allowance.
So, from 16 April 2025 to 27 February 2026, employers can submit their collective agreement or unilateral document to the administrative authority.
The Administration also posted a set of Questions & Answers on this subject on 22 April 2025
Summary
It is up to the employer to take the necessary measures to enable the employee to benefit from paid leave (Cass. soc. 13 June 2012, no. 11-10929).
In the event of a dispute over an employee’s entitlement to paid leave, who bears the burden of proof: the employer or the employee?
In a decision handed down on 9 April 2025 (no. 23-17723), the Court of Cassation (French supreme court) has ruled that, under Articles L. 3141-12 and L. 3141-14 of the French Labor Code, and in view of the purpose assigned to paid annual leave by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, it is the employer's responsibility to take the appropriate measures to ensure that the employee can effectively exercise his right to leave, and, in the event of a dispute, to prove that it has taken the steps legally required of it.
In fact, this outcome comes as no surprise. It is in line with earlier Court of Cassation decisions.
A decree dated 4 April 2025 (no. 2025-318) on the application of various employer contribution reduction schemes was published in the Journal Officiel on 6 April 2025.
For 2025, it sets the salary thresholds below which reductions in employers' health insurance and family allowance contributions will apply.
It also determines the maximum values of the coefficient for the general reduction in employer contributions, taking into account the mutualized portion of the occupational injury and illness (“OII”) contribution rate and the unemployment insurance contribution rate.
In addition, it provides for exceptional entry-into-force procedures for OII contributions.
Lastly, it incorporates into the French Social Security Code – without modifying existing law – the regulatory provisions relating to the employer's flat-rate deduction on overtime hours for companies with between 20 and 250 employees.
In principle, employees enjoy disciplinary immunity in matters relating to their personal lives. As a result, a private matter (such as a love affair) cannot, in principle, constitute an act of misconduct justifying disciplinary dismissal. However, there is an exception when the behavior in question constitutes a breach of an obligation arising under the employee’s employment contract (Cass. soc. 29 May 2024, no. 22-16218).
This can occur when a senior-level employee exhibits insistent behavior toward a co-worker, in order to obtain an explanation for the break-up of their romantic relationship or to maintain a relationship despite the latter's clear refusal.
Indeed, this is how the Court of Cassation ruled in a decision dated 26 March 2025 (no. 23-17544).
In the case at hand, such behavior was found to be harmful to the co-worker’s mental health, making it impossible to keep the senior-level employee within the company.
