Employer’s Failure to Follow the Occupational Physician’s Recommendations: The Employee Has an Automatic Right to Compensation
In principle, further to a decision dated 13 April 2016 (No. 14-28293), the existence and assessment of harm fall within the sole discretion of the trial court judges. In other words, an employer’s failure to fulfill its obligations does not automatically entitle the employee to damages. The employee must prove the existence of the harm.
However, the Court of Cassation (French supreme court) has recognized several exceptions.
For example:
The mere finding that the employer breached its obligation by requiring an employee to work while on sick leave entitles the employee to compensation (Cass. soc., 4 Sept. 2024, No. 23-15944).
Similarly, a mere finding that the employer failed to fulfill its obligation to suspend all work during maternity leave entitles the employee to compensation (Cass. soc., 4 Sept. 2024, No. 22-16129).
Should the same apply in cases where the employer fails to comply with the occupational physician’s recommendations?
In a reversal of precedent, the Court of Cassation has answered in the affirmative in a decision dated 9 September 2026 (No. 25-11901), holding that the mere finding that the employer failed to comply with the occupational physician’s recommendations regarding individual measures to adjust, adapt, or modify the workstation (…) automatically entitles the employee to compensation,
Indeed, failure to comply with the occupational physician’s recommendations inevitably results in harm to the safety and health of the employee concerned.
Consequently, the right to compensation is “automatic,” and the employee is not required to provide proof of the harm suffered!
Articles
When an employee is declared unfit for work by the occupational physician, the employer is under an obligation to offer them a different position. The redeployment offer sent to the employee must, in particular, be submitted to the Social and Economic Committee (CSE) for its opinion.
Failure to consult the CSE, or failure to do so in accordance with the procedures, deprives the dismissal of real and serious cause (Cass. soc. 30 Sept. 2020, No. 19-11974, Labor Code, Art. L. 1226-15).
What happens when only one regular member of the CSE has issued an opinion, while the other regular member is on leave and has not been replaced?
In its decision of 9 September 2026 (No. 25-10985), the Court of Cassation has held that in such a case, the consultation with the CSE is invalid and the dismissal lacks real and serious cause.
The National Interprofessional Agreement (ANI) of 11 January 2008, as amended by Addendum No. 4 of 18 May 2009, provides that the employee is to receive a specific severance pay, the amount of which may not be less than the statutory severance pay or the collectively bargained severance pay provided for in the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
Consequently, what should happen when the provisions of the industry-wide agreement and those of the company-level agreement provide for different calculation methods? Should the company-level agreement take precedence?
In a decision dated 1 July 2026 (No. 25-14861), the Court of Cassation, relying on Article L. 2253-3 of the Labor Code, has held that the provisions of the company-level agreement take precedence over those addressing the same subject matter in the industry-wide agreement.
The applicable collective bargaining agreement is the one governing the employer’s principal business activity (Labor Code, Art. L. 2261-2).
But what happens when the company is part of a corporate group? Should the company’s principal activity be assessed in light of the activities of the other companies in the group?
In a decision dated 9 September 2026 (No. 25-14690), the Court of Cassation provides its analysis regarding the collective bargaining agreement applicable to Amazon France Logistique.
Since 1 October 2019, that company has been applying the national collective bargaining agreement for road transportation and ancillary transportation activities.
A union filed a lawsuit in district court seeking an order requiring the company to apply the collective bargaining agreement for distance-selling companies. The union argued that the company’s business activity should be assessed “by taking into account its corporate purpose, the activity actually carried out, and, where applicable, its integration in an integrated economic chain.”
The Court of Cassation does not agree with this analysis.
In its view, the Court of Appeals was not required to apply such an analysis. Since it had found that the company’s primary activity was logistics—an activity distinct and independent from the buying and selling conducted on the Amazon.fr website—it had correctly concluded that the collective bargaining agreement for road transportation and ancillary transportation activities was applicable.
