Frédéric Chhum

Frédéric CHHUM Avocat Associé - PARIS - Membre du conseil de l'ordre des avocats de Paris (Mandat 2019-2021)

Le Cabinet d’avocats Frédéric CHHUM conseille principalement des salariés, cadres, cadres dirigeants, dans le cadre de litiges avec leur employeur et/ ou de négociation de départs.

Le Cabinet d'avocats Frédéric CHHUM a aussi développé une expertise en droit du travail de l’audiovisuel (intermittents du spectacle, techniciens, artistes, journalistes, pigistes, cadres).

Il intervient dans les contentieux complexes en droit du travail (requalification de CDD en CDI à temps plein des intermittents du spectacle , heures supplémentaires

Brèves juridiques

Droit du travail Paris

Réforme de l’assurance chômage après le décret du 26 juillet 2019 (en vigueur à compter...

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille) a publié 4 articles sur la réforme de l’assurance chômage suite aux décrets du 26 juillet 2019.

La réforme entrera en vigueur au 1er novembre 2019.

Cliquez sur le lien internet ci-dessous pour lire (ou relire) les articles.


1) Réforme de l’assurance chômage : les nouvelles règles après le décret n° 2019-797 du 26 juillet 2019 (I).

 

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/reforme-assurance-chomage-les-nouvelles-regles-apres-decret-2019-797-juillet,32161.html#IUcr5kRtqIwWSHr1.99

2) Décret n° 2019-797 du 26 juillet 2019 : les mesures favorisant le retour à l’emploi et la sécurisation des parcours professionnels (II).
https://www.village-justice.com/articles/decret-2019-797-juillet-2019-relatif-regime-assurance-chomage-les-mesures,32170.html#X4xl2cpDJYIw1eXI.99

3) Décret n° 2019-797 du 26 juillet 2019 relatif au régime d’assurance chômage : les contributions générales (III).

 https://www.village-justice.com/articles/decret-2019-797-juillet-2019-relatif-regime-assurance-chomage-les-contributions,32187.html#XvsJMp3lk2lfUElZ.99

4) Chômage des salariés démissionnaires et travailleurs indépendants : les nouvelles règles après les décrets du 26 juillet 2019 (IV).

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/decrets-2019-796-no2019-797-juillet-2019-indemnisation-des-salaries,32203.html#uD7kucPmYgbiLJX4.99

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille) - Equality Women / Men: how to put it in...

During this training on the theme of Equality Women / Men: how to put it in place in the company? intervened: Maître Frédéric CHHUM, Maître Marilou OLLIVIER, Marion SIMONE (Student Lawyer), Emmanuel LUGUET (labor inspector) and Slimane LAOUFI (Chef de Pole, Defender of Rights (défenseur des droits)).

***

PowerPoint can be downloaded from the pdf below.

 

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat et member of the Paris Bar Council (conseil de l’ordre)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Index égalité Femmes / Hommes : le PowerPoint de CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille) du...

Le Cabinet Frédéric CHHUM AVOCATS a organisé le 3 juillet 2019 au Campus 2019 des avocats du barreau de Paris une formation sur le thème Egalité Femmes / Hommes : comment la mettre en place dans l’entreprise ?

Lors de cette formation, sont intervenus, Maître Frédéric CHHUM, Maître Marilou OLLIVIER, Marion SIMONE (élève Avocat), Emmanuel LUGUET (inspecteur du travail) et Slimane LAOUFI (Chef de Pole, Défenseur des droits).

***

Après les entreprises de plus de 1.000 salariés, ce sont désormais les entreprises dont l’effectif est compris entre 251 et 1.000 salariés qui doivent publier leur index sur l’égalité femmes/hommes au plus tard le 1er septembre 2019 (art. 4 décret n° 2019-15 du 8 janvier 2019).

***

Le PowerPoint de la formation est téléchargeable dans le pdf ci-dessous.

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

French labour law: heart attack at work = accident at work despite the existence of...

In a decision of May 29, 2019 (No. 18-16183), the Court of Cassation ruled that an heart attack occurring on arrival in the company should be considered as an accident at work, despite the presence of prior symptoms when the journey from home to work.

1) Background.

According to Article L411-1 of the Social Security Code, an accident at work is an accident "caused by the fact or on the occasion of work".

This implies that the accident occurred while the employee was under the authority of the employer.

Thus, once the accident occurred at the time and place of work, the employee benefits from a presumption of liability for the accident at work.

In this case, the difficulty was that the symptoms of discomfort had arisen prior to the entry of the employee into the company. There was therefore the question of the application of the presumption of imputability.

2) Facts and procedure.

In the present case, an employee had died of a heart attack while he had just arrived at his place of work.

The employer however disputed the assumption of responsibility of the accident under the professional legislation.

Disappointed by the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, he appealed on points of law.

In support of his appeal, the appellant argued that the presumption of liability for the accident at work was not applicable to the case at hand for two reasons:

• the injury did not occur suddenly at the time and place of work, the first symptoms being felt before the arrival of the employee in the company;

• the employee was not under his authority at the time of the accident, since he had gone directly to the break room and had not started his work.

It was necessary to show that the discomfort felt by the employee was not an accident at work but rather a commuting accident, a situation more favorable for the employer.

3) Solution of the Court of Cassation.

The High Court dismisses the arguments raised by the applicant and has concluded that it is possible to rely on the presumption of imputability of the accident at work.

The Court of Cassation has indeed held that the accident had occurred at the time and place of work.

The employee "took his position even though he did not go immediately to the store" and was therefore under the authority of the employer at the time of the accident.

The meeting of these two elements (occurrence of the accident at the time and place of work, under the authority of the employer) authorizes the Court of Cassation to retain the professional nature of the accident.

She thus deduced that "the existence of symptoms prior to discomfort during the journey between home and the workplace is not likely to characterize a commuting accident".

To read the Article, please click on the link below

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/infarctus-survenu-arrivee-dans-entreprise-malgre-existence-symptomes-prealables,32127.html#7xqDdMlDdJoZQrom.99

c. cass. May 29, 2019, No. 18-16183

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038629485

 

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat and Member of the Paris Bar Council (Conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

Infarctus au temps et au lieu travail = accident du travail (c. cass. 29 mai...

 

1) Faits et procédure.

En l’espèce, un salarié était décédé d’un infarctus alors qu’il venait d’arriver sur son lieu de travail.

L’employeur contestait cependant la prise en charge de l’accident au titre de la législation professionnelle.

Débouté de sa demande par la Cour d’appel de Bordeaux, il s’est pourvu en cassation.

À l’appui de son pourvoi, le requérant soutenait que la présomption d’imputabilité de l’accident au travail ne trouvait pas à s’appliquer au cas de l’espèce, et ce pour deux raisons :

  • la lésion n’était pas survenue soudainement au temps et au lieu de travail, les premiers symptômes s’étant fait ressentir préalablement à l’arrivée du salarié dans l’entreprise ;
  • le salarié n’était pas sous son autorité au moment de l’accident, puisqu’il s’était directement rendu en salle de pause et n’avait pas débuté son travail.

Il s’agissait de démontrer que le malaise subi par le salarié ne relevait pas d’un accident du travail mais plutôt d’un accident de trajet, une situation plus favorable pour l’employeur.

2) Solution de la Cour de cassation.

La Haute juridiction écarte les arguments soulevés par le requérant et a conclu à la possibilité de se prévaloir de la présomption d’imputabilité de l’accident au travail.

La Cour de cassation a en effet retenu que l’accident s’était bien produit au temps et au lieu de travail.

Le salarié avait « pris son poste même s’il ne s’était pas rendu immédiatement dans le magasin », et se trouvait par conséquent sous l’autorité de l’employeur au moment de l’accident.

La réunion de ces deux éléments (survenance de l’accident au temps et au lieu de travail, sous l’autorité de l’employeur) autorise la Cour de cassation à retenir le caractère professionnel de l’accident.

Elle en a ainsi déduit que « l’existence de symptômes préalables au malaise, pendant le trajet entre le domicile et le lieu de travail n’est pas de nature à caractériser un accident de trajet ».

Pour lire l’intégralité de la brève, cliquez sur le lien ci-dessous.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/infarctus-survenu-arrivee-dans-entreprise-malgre-existence-symptomes-prealables,32127.html#7xqDdMlDdJoZQrom.99

Source

c. cass. 29 mai 2019, n°18-16183

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000038629485

Frédéric CHHUM, avocat and Member of the Council of the Bar Association of Paris (member du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

.Paris: 4 rue Bayard 75008 Paris tel: 0142560300

.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

.Lille: 25, rue Gounod 59000 Lille tel: 0320135083

French labour law - Index of equality between women and men: the General Director of...

The General Director of Labor (DGT) has communicated its instructions on the implementation of the gender equality index (index égalité femmes / hommes), in an instruction sent on 15 July 2019 to the labor inspection services.

As a reminder, the index set up by the law "Avenir professionnel" of September 5, 2018 makes it possible to evaluate the differences in remuneration within each company, with a view to reducing gender inequalities.

The purpose of the unpublished instruction is to assist companies in the implementation of the index and to guide inspection procedures.

According to the instruction, the controls will target, first and foremost, companies that have not published their index or that have not sent it to the administration, and then companies that score less than 75 points.

Companies with 1,000 employees or more should be considered first, since they have an obligation to publish their index since March 1, 2019.

Then follow smaller companies, which have a longer period to publish their index (September 1, 2019 for companies employing between 250 and 1,000 employees, March 1, 2020 for companies employing between 50 and 250 employees) .

The goal given to labor inspectors is to examine 7,000 companies in 2019, and all enterprises with at least 50 employees by 2022.

Regarding the penalties incurred, companies that have not published the index or whose score is less than 75 points risk a financial penalty, calculated on the basis of the activity income of the following whole month (R. 2242-7 C.trav).

An employer who fails to take corrective measures or who is taking improperly correct corrective measures is liable to the same penalty.

The instruction specifies that persisting not to publish the exact note will be worth the absence of publication of the index.

Lastly, it adds that the failure of the employer to transmit data relating to his index is "capable of constituting an obstacle to the performance of the duties of a screening officer who is punished by imprisonment for one year and a fine of € 37,500 ".

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/index-egalite-femmes-hommes-dgt-donne-des-consignes-controle-aux-inspecteurs,32212.html

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocat and member of the Council of the Paris Bar

Nina BOUILLON

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

www.chhum-avocats.fr

Twitter: @fchhum

French Labour law - Judicial Termination (résiliation judiciaire): in the event of non-payment of overtime,...

1) Facts and procedure

Mr. X was hired by IFOCOP as of October 7, 2010, as Training Manager, under three replacement CDDs without a definite term.

As of November 7, 2011, Mr. X was hired on a permanent contract.

On December 12, 2014, Mr. X appealed to the Labor Court of Paris in judicial termination of his employment contract arguing in particular the harassment of which he was victim as well as reminders of wages for overtime.

On November 20, 2015, Mr. X was fired for real and serious reasons.

By judgment of 6 April 2017, the Labor Court, in its tiebreaker, sentenced IFOCOP to pay Mr. X the sum of 4,000 euros as salary recalls, in addition to the sum of 400 euros for paid vacation leave.

Mr. X appealed this judgment.

2) The judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal of 2 July 2019

In its judgment of 2 July 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal:

- Confirms the judgment of the Labor Court in that it denied Mr X of his demands relating to the moral harassment and the obligation of security of result;

- Requalify Mr X's fixed-term contract of 1 August 2011 on a permanent contract;

- pronounces the judicial termination of the employment contract to the fault of the employer;

- Condemns IFOCOP to pay Mr X the following sums:

-2000 euros as requalification allowance;

-7,713.14 Euros as overtime reminders made between 7 October 2010 and 31 December 2014 plus 771.31 euros as paid leave;

-607.82 euros as compensation for compensation for compensatory rest in respect of 2011;

-250euros of damages for non-observance of the maximum daily working time;

-250euros of damages for non-compliance with the maximum weekly working time;

-250euros of damages for non-compliance with the periodic medical examination;

-10,000 euros as damages for dismissal without real and serious cause;

-13,490.10euros as compensation for concealed work;

- EUR 2,000 under Article 700 of the CPC.

- Recalls that the wage claims bear interest at the legal rate as from the receipt by the employer of his summons before the labor court while the indemnity claims bear interest at the legal rate starting from the decision by fixing everything at the times the principle and the amount.

- Orders the reimbursement by IFOCOP to Pôle Emploi of the unemployment benefits possibly paid to the employee since his dismissal within the limit of one month of indemnity.

3) The Court of Appeal pronounces the judicial termination of Mr. X's employment contract with the wrongs of IFOCOP

3.1) On the request to requalify Mr. X's fixed-term contracts on CDI

Mr X requested the requalification of his replacement CDD on permanent contracts.

The Court of Appeal first held that Mr. X's claim was not time-barred.

Thus, the Court of Appeal recalls that Mr. Z appealed to the industrial tribunal and filed his request for requalification on December 12, 2014, after the entry into force of the new law.

At the date of the promulgation of the new law, that is to say on June 17, 2013, the five-year prescription on the request for requalification of its fixed-term contracts concluded between 2010 and 2011 was not acquired, so that the new deadline of 2 years began to run on that date without, however, that the total duration of the prescription could exceed the five-year period provided for by the previous law.

It follows that the employee's requests for re-qualification of fixed-term employment contracts concluded as of October 7, 2010 expiring on May 14, 2011 and in payment of a requalification allowance are not prescribed because of the interruption. of the prescription by the referral, on December 12, 2014, of the industrial tribunal, and that consequently they are receivable.

Next, the Court of Appeal notes that Article L.1242-7 provides that when the fixed-term contract contains an imprecise term must be concluded for a minimum duration, failing which, the contract is deemed to have an indefinite duration.

In this case, the third fixed-term contract entered into by Mr X did not have a minimum duration so that the requalification of the contractual relationship was necessary.

3.2) Judicial termination of Mr X's employment contract with the exclusive wrongs of IFOCOP

a) On moral harassment (harcèlement moral)

The Court of Appeal first recalled that pursuant to Article L. 1152-1 of the Labor Code, no employee shall be subjected to repeated acts of moral harassment which have as their object or effect a deterioration of his or her working conditions that could affect his rights and dignity, alter his physical or mental health or jeopardize his professional future.

 

Under Article L1152-2 of the Labor Code, no employee may be sanctioned or dismissed for having suffered or refused to undergo acts of moral or sexual harassment, or for having testified of such facts or for having related them.

According to Article L. 1154-1 of the same Code, when a dispute concerning harassment arises, the employee establishes facts that make it possible to presume the existence of harassment and, in view of these elements, it belongs to the employee. employer to prove that such conduct does not constitute such harassment and that its decision is justified by objective factors unrelated to any harassment.

By application of article L1152-3, any decision or act contrary to the provisions of the aforementioned articles is void.

It is imposed on the employer by Article L1152-4 to take all necessary measures to prevent acts of moral harassment.

In addition, the employer, having an obligation of security of result towards his employees, must ensure its effectiveness in application of the provisions of Article L. 4121-1 of the Labor Code.

In this case, Mr X was giving the debates certificates describing a deleterious climate within the training center but also demonstrated that in a 2014 evaluation he had reported suffering at work.

Mr. X also denounced a letter of order to order that he considered unjustified, to have been removed from a promotion and put away in February 2015.

Lastly, Mr X was distributing medical certificates testifying to the deterioration of his state of health.

The Court of Appeal deduced from these elements, taken as a whole, that Mr. X established the materiality of precise and concordant facts in support of his claim.

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal found that IFOCOP demonstrated that its decisions were justified by elements external to any moral harassment.

Thus, the Court of Appeal considers that the radically different management found by Mr. X in the two training centers to which he was assigned does not demonstrate how the working conditions were unbearable.

In addition, the trial judges found that the referral to the CHSCT for investigation was not late.

(b) Overtime payments, non-compliance with the annual overtime quota, and failure to work overtime

In support of his request for overtime, Mr X was in the discussion:

- a summary table of the overtime he claims to have performed;

-the IFOCOP's score sheets used as a basis for the above table, showing the arrival, break and departure times at the end of the day;

- testimonials from employees confirming Mr X's presence beyond working hours.

Also, the Court of Appeal considered that Mr. X produced preliminary elements that could be discussed by the employer and that are likely to support his request.

 

In response to these elements, IFOCOP observed that it had never given Mr. X permission to perform these overtime hours.

The Court of Appeal observes, however, that it is a right that the fact that the employee did not seek prior authorization from his management to work overtime, the existence of which the employer could not ignore, has no effect. the right of the person concerned to obtain the payment of overtime worked.

In the same way, it is accepted that the absence of prior authorization does not in itself exclude the tacit agreement of the employer, since it follows that the latter was informed by the time cards, hours employees who had not objected and therefore consented to their fulfillment.

In light of this, the Court of Appeal found that overtime was owed.

In addition to the payment of overtime, the Court of Appeal also ordered IFOCOP to pay compensation for non-compliance with the annual overtime quota and for non-compliance with the maximum legal daily and weekly working hours. .

c) IFOCOP's breaches of its salary obligations justify the judicial termination of Mr X's employment contract

The Court of Appeal therefore holds, in view of the foregoing, that the employer has repeatedly failed to comply with its salary obligations and in particular with respect to the payment of the share of wages represented by overtime or conventionally authorized quota for these overtime hours and to a lesser extent on the daily or maximum hours of work.

The Court of Appeal deduces that the employer has thus failed in its essential obligations inherent to the employment contract and that these failings were such as to prevent the continuation of the employment contract.

The Court of Appeal thus fixed the date of termination of the contract on the date of sending the letter of dismissal and sentenced IFOCOP to pay Mr. X the sum of 10,000 euros in damages for dismissal without cause real and serious.

(d) The allowance for covert work

 

Lastly, the Court of Appeal sentenced IFOCOP to a concealed work allowance, stating that because of the existence of the scorecards and the instructions given to the heads of departments on the respect of the hourly amplitudes, the employer could ignore the existence of the overtime worked.

In addition, the Court of Appeal notes that Mr. X's pay slips systematically mentioned a working time of 151.67 hours and that IFOCOP did not explain why overtime was not included in the notice. the pay slips.

(e) Damages for non-compliance with the provisions of the periodic medical examination

Mr. X argued that with the exception of the hiring medical examination in October 2010, he had only been summoned to one periodic medical examination on January 7, 2015.

 

IFOCOP replied that it was affiliated with a center of occupational medicine but that if Mr. X had not been convened it is because of its various mutations.

Article R.4624-10 of the Labor Code in its version applicable to the dispute provides that "the employee shall receive periodic medical examinations, at least every twenty-four months, by the occupational physician".

In this case, the employer does not submit the evidence required of him to have fulfilled this obligation, so that the breach is characterized, the employer having failed in his obligation of chief.

In the state of the explanations and the documents provided, the Court of Appeal considered that this lack of medical follow-up had caused the employee an injury that had to be compensated up to 250 euros.

Frédéric CHHUM, Avocat et membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris

Camille Bonhoure, Avocat

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)
email : chhum@chhum-avocats.com
www.chhum-avocats.fr
Twitter : @fchhum

Instagram : fredericchhum

 

 

Affichez plus...

Contact
Nom



Prénom



Téléphone



Adresse mail



Message


ADRESSES
4, rue Bayard
75008 Paris

41, quai de la Fosse
44000 Nantes

CONTACTS
Paris : 01.42.89.24.48
Nantes : 02.28.44.26.44

INFOS

  • Selarl Frédéric CHHUM AVOCATS
  • Capital de 60.000 euros
  • RCS Paris 831 146 436