The conflicts that fuel the prud’hommes reflect, every day, our social history. The trial is public. Regularly, a journalist for The Express purpose of attending the debates.

Paris (conseil des prud’hommes trade section, on 15 January 2019 15: 40

The president, surrounded by three advisors, called the lawyers for Youssef and her ex-employer, a small supermarket in paris.

The president : Mr. is entered in the company on 18 August 2014, it worked until 23 may 2016, so he has less than two years of seniority. You know the average of his salary ?

The lawyer for Youssef : 1 531,33 euros on average.

The president (counsel for the employer) : do You agree ?

The counsel for the employer : Yes.

The president (the lawyer, Youssef) : Your requests ?

The lawyer for Youssef : I want 18 375,96 euros for unfair dismissal, 1 531,33 euros to pay in lieu of notice, 153,13 euros of paid leave related and 2 500 euros to article 700.

The president : We are listening to you.

The lawyer for Youssef : The collective agreement that is applicable to my client is one of the trade. He performs his contract of employment as normally as possible. But the April 10, 2016, he informed his employer that he has problems with his superior.

He tells of specific facts, such as mood swings. For example, she asks him to come to work even when he is off work. It calls for a yes or a no. It must take him and bring him back to the airport, deliver cardboard boxes in his home. It therefore sends an e-mail on its strange working conditions to the employer, co-signed by other employees, which is quite rare.

On may 12, the employer responds to this letter, indicates that an investigation has been made and that there was nothing wrong with the superior in question. For him, there would be difficulties in a relationship.

The president : Ah !

STORY >> “It is sick, it is discovered radiant on Facebook, in Deauville”

The lawyer for Youssef : The problem is that one speaks to me of a survey, but on what basis ? Who has been interviewed ? When ? It’s still a fair bit of stick to a statement of the hierarchy, especially that there is a particular context : my client is convened on April 15, 2016 to a preliminary interview to be held on April 26.

He is dismissed for serious misconduct on the 23rd of may. He is accused, a fact which would place the 12 march to 16 h. He was talking with two of his superior who asked him to show himself more understanding to the place of another employee who was difficult to understand the French. “You said : “his mother the whore” in Arabic to your superior that you made this remark and then asked you to resume your position,” said the letter of dismissal. My client denies having insulted his superior in Arabic or in French. He knows how to hold it, it is a serious accusation and unfounded.

The counsel for the employer : Mr. has been about a particularly virulent and threatening towards members of the frame. Its N+1 asked to have a tone more appropriate vis-à-vis another employee.

The lawyer for Youssef : My client does not speak either French easy, fluid. I don’t see why he would have told off another employee in this pattern language ! Besides, the colleague supposedly humiliated has not even testified against my client. Oddly, it does not say that he was the victim of name-calling and you know why ? Because my client was never cursed, he never ill-treated. My client wants to keep his job, he does not want to fight with anyone, he does not want to be discourteous.

The counsel for the employer : The two managers present on the day explained to him that he should not humiliate the colleague, but to accompany it. The employee is nervous. Its N+2, as it asks two times to resume his work. Mr. pare then fist on the table and leaves, saying, “his mother, the whore” in Arabic.

The lawyer for Youssef : Which proves that he has used the Arabic language ? I am of north african origin and I do not speak Arabic. We are close to something foul-smelling is attributing it to my client about outrageous in Arabic, while this is a simple employee of a convenience store, who was perfectly aware of the relationship of subordination that it has vis-à-vis his employer and the respectful attitude that it strives to have its N+1 and N+2. My client has mainly said to his superior that he was going to alert the employer on these accusations and on the work he had to accomplish for one of them outside of work hours. They told him that they would avenge themselves !

TESTIMONY >> “She dares to play it: I’m a poor little victim of racism”

The counsel for the employer : they Are trying to hijack this incident for problems between his hierarchy and this gentleman. It is a little easy. It does not give us any item on the harassment to which the employee would have been victim. Wear insults and bang one’s fist on the table, for a subordinate, it is unacceptable.

An advisor : This would be more acceptable on the part of a N+1 ?

The counsel for the employer : I did not say that.

The same counsellor : And what evidence do you have of the incident ?

The counsel for the employer : there is no camera that has filmed the scene if this is the answer you want to hear. But this employee had an attitude particularly virulent. Customers were able to attend the scene, which only worsens the problem as it raises the problem of the image of the company and shall constitute a nuisance for it. The materiality of the facts is attested by two managers, under oath, they tell the facts of abuse and violence that they have experienced and which they have been the victims.

The lawyer for Youssef : You have only the version of the two managers and only their certificates. What are its N+1 and N+2. There is something that is not going to. It is in a supermarket, there are a lot of staff, customers, but what are these frameworks and only those who testify.

The counsel for the employer : Why would there be more credibility to this man who had not two years of age and had already had a warning ? Be punished for what he did, the rest, not in dispute.

The president : On what ground ?

The lawyer of the employer : On of expired products.

The lawyer for Youssef : It has been criticised for having left the shelf of the soft drinks out of date. He has blamed him alone, not to the other employees that used to supply the shelf also.

The counsel for the employer : This is not the debate and he did not dispute this warning.

The president : The problem occurs on the 12th of march, and the fire on 23 may…

The counsel for the employer : We have not had another choice.

The president : will You put the time !

The lawyer for Youssef : On several occasions, during the period between the notice of the interview and in the termination, it has prevented my client from working. “You go home,” he has told. It has not the letter of dismissal, so he stays and calls the police to prove that he was good at his job. The second time, he again calls the police but has to start at home because the employer proves that he has sent him a letter by registered mail.

The president : What is his situation today ?

The lawyer for Youssef : He is still unemployed, but it looks to work. He wants to leave in Spain where he has obtained the map to be a truck driver.

16.10. The chair : The debate is closed. Delivered on February 13.

Verdict : The dismissal is recharacterized in the case of dismissal for cause real and serious. The employer must pay 1 531,13 euros of compensation for notice and 153,11 € of paid leave pertaining to 1, 000 euros to article 700.

Slander in the workplace : what the law says

The insult or the defamation by an employee often justify a dismissal for gross misconduct. But the circumstances, the context in which the events took place, the hierarchical relationship between the one who utters the insult and the one who receives them (superior, colleague, subordinate or third party when there is a customer) are all elements left to the discretion of the judge to mitigate or aggravate the fault. In fact, the insults and name-calling and defamation by an employee can be sanctioned in the labour law, such as criminal law.

In 2017, the firm Eléas has done a study showing that 42% of employees say they are exposed to antisocial behaviour, with 53 % of employees in the commerce sector who say they are victims of this phenomenon in constant rise.

In the case of Youssef, the serious misconduct is justified, according to the employer, for three reasons : Youssef allegedly denigrated one employee, and then rebutted a crop by its hierarchy in hurling, name-calling and aggravating them by violence, that is to say, a fist on the table. But the employee denies to block all charges, is supported by his colleagues who testified that he was at the disposal of his superior.

In addition, on three facts, no person outside the scene cannot confirm the claims of its hierarchy, no single customer no more, and this diminishes the character of harm to the image of the company.

The insult to the public is a crime. But in this case, if insult there has been, it has been non-public. To the Court of cassation (June 17, 2009, appeal 08-41. 663), to say to his superior, “I have nothing to wax you have to make you cum “, and then, a few days later, “I love you, fuck you and your letter and here is what I’m doing”, followed by insult and death threat from his hierarchical superior does not render impossible the maintenance of employee in the company and does not constitute a serious fault. The judges were of the opinion that the violent behaviour of the employee was to be put to the account of the state of exasperation and psychological fragility in which it was because he was under pressure at his place of work.

Read our complete file

“Dismissed for abuse on a child” “The security agent is party while a man was lying on the ground “part has no choice : the burn-out or the prison,”

In the case of Youssef, it is yet in its hierarchy that doubt has enjoyed since the termination for cause real and serious has been retained.