the CGT elected official exerted “pressure on employees”, his dismissal validated by the courts

See my news
Follow Paris News

His union protection will not have protected him from justice. There cour administrative d’appel of Versailles confirmed the legality of the dismissal of a staff representative of Paris-La Défense, the local public establishment (EPL) which manages the business district straddling Puteaux, Courbevoie and Nanterre (Hauts-de-Seine) .

He “did not respect the employees”

Cet elected CGT – who had nevertheless received the support of his union in this affair – had in fact been denounced in January 2017 by one of his CFDT counterparts: he “did not respect the employees of the cleaning company” Europe Services Voie (ESV) , a service provider of his employer. He even “called” the site manager “to inform that an employee [d’ESV] was not at his post” although he was “yet not the hierarchical superior of the employees” of the cleaning company in Évry-Courcouronnes (Essonne).

However, his actions were not reported directly to his employer. Paris-La Défense was only aware of it six months later, in July 2017, when this employee in charge of public service delegations (DSP) had “entered the operational room of the central security station to view surveillance camera screens », Relates the administrative court of appeal of Versailles in a judgment which has just been made public.

On this occasion, the applicant had held “some aggressive and violent remarks », and an investigation was launched by the EPL. Its director had then been “precisely informed” of the “seriousness” of this employee’s behavior: he was in fact taking “photos of the control screens” to “exert pressure on ESV employees”.

His behavior generated “social disruption”

His behavior generated “social disturbances” and amounted to “harassment”, recontextualizes the administrative court of appeal of Versailles: the labor inspectorate had even been contacted by the CFDT. Her “ insubordinationpersistent” and its “ abuse» also exasperated his employer, who saw it as “continuous wrongful behavior”.

The fact remains that this staff representative was considered a “protected employee” by his union functions within the CGT, the staff representative bodies (IRP) and the fact that he was also an “employee advisor” to the industrial tribunal. men: it was therefore necessary to request prior authorization from the labor inspectorate to proceed with his dismissal.

“Lack of neutrality” of the labor inspectorate

However, on December 8, 2017, the labor inspector refused to give the green light. But the Paris-La Défense local public establishment finally won its case by exercising a “hierarchical appeal” directly to the Ministry of Labor: the Hauts-de-Seine labor inspectorate had “lacked neutrality” in this matter. , according to the EPL. The CGT delegate had under these conditions referred the matter to the administrative court of Cergy-Pontoise; dismissed in June 2021, he therefore appealed to the administrative court of appeal of Versailles.

According to him, the decision was “linked to the exercise of his mandates”and not to his “behavior”, since “the industrial tribunal condemned” his employer “for this reason” and a previous request for authorization for dismissal presented in 2013 had been “also refused for this reason” .

He also believed that apart of the facts was prescribed. “No wrongful act alone can give rise to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings beyond a period of two months from the day on which the employer became aware of it,” effectively provides for the Labor Code.

But, in this case, “by informing the person concerned of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on September 14, 2017, the employer did not rely on previous facts of more than two months from the day on which he had knowledge of the facts, without being hindered by the alleged circumstance that Mr.

“Confidential information disclosed”

And “this request for dismissal […] rests on theabuse committed in the course of his professional dutiesnamely having disclosed confidential information relating to a public contract in the process of being awarded, having entered without authorization the video surveillance recording room in disregard of the regulations on access to these images restricted to authorized personnel only, and having exerted pressure on ESV employees so that they reduce their breaks,” list the Versailles judges.

“Given the grievances […] established and their seriousness, the Minister of Labor did not vitiate her decision with an error of assessment by considering that the request for authorization of dismissal was not linked to the exercise of the mandates held by Mr. they deduce.

The legality of the dismissal was therefore confirmed, and the applicant will even have to pay 1,500 euros to his former employer for his legal costs.

/CB (PressPepper)

Follow all the news from your favorite cities and media by subscribing to Mon Actu.