Labor Law Newsletter, October 2025
Regulatory Section
Workplace accidents, occupational health: a new DUERP guide for conducting a gender-specific assessment
ANACT has just published a methodological DUERP guide designed to facilitate the assessment of occupational risks for both women and men. The goal is to conduct a risk assessment that closely reflects actual work situations and thereby identify appropriate preventive measures for both women and men.
It allows for consideration of:
- Differences in exposure between women and men;
- The differentiated impacts of risks.
The proposed approach ensures compliance with regulatory requirements. Since 2014, the Labor Code has stipulated that risk assessments must incorporate “the differentiated impact of risk exposure based on gender.” (Art. L.4121-3 Labor Code)
Driver’s licenses
An executive order dated September 26, 2025 (published in the Official Journal of the French Republic on September 30, 2025) establishes the standard forms for certificates of no medical contraindications applicable to operator certifications.
This applies to workers required to hold a driving authorization for certain categories of equipment (tower cranes, mobile cranes, auxiliary loading cranes, self-propelled industrial trucks with a ride-on operator, mobile elevating work platforms, and remote-controlled or ride-on construction machinery).
The certificate of no medical contraindications must be issued by the occupational physician following a medical examination: these risks are no longer subject to “enhanced individual monitoring” (SIR).
Validity of the certificate: 5 years. Certificates of fitness previously issued under the SIR are recognized as equivalent for 5 years from their date of issuance, provided that the employee is not exposed to one or more other risks covered by the SIR.
Decision: Order of September 26, 2025, regarding training in the operation of self-propelled mobile work equipment and equipment for lifting loads or persons
Case Law Section
Remote workers are entitled to meal vouchers
The Court of Cassation has just ruled on an issue that had divided lower-court judges: Are employees working remotely entitled to meal vouchers just like their colleagues working on-site?
The Court notes that Article L. 1222-9 of the Labor Code provides for equal rights between teleworkers and employees working on-site, and that the provisions regarding meal vouchers do not stipulate any conditions for their issuance other than the fact that a meal is included in the employee’s work schedule.
It therefore concludes that an employer may not deny an employee meal vouchers solely on the grounds that the employee is working remotely.
Decision : Cass. Soc., 8 octobre 2025, n°24-12.373
Work-Related Disability: The Independence of Labor Law and Social Security Law
Two rulings reaffirm the autonomy of labor law from social security law with regard to the protection of employees who are victims of workplace accidents or occupational diseases.
- In the first case (24-12.900), the Court of Cassation held that trial judges could set aside the application of Article L. 1226-9 of the Labor Code, since the basis for the suspension of the employment contract during which the contractual relationship had been terminated was not sufficiently established: the medical and factual evidence regarding the occupational nature of the initial accident which had been covered by the CPAM but was subsequently deemed unenforceable against the employer was insufficient to prove that it had occurred.
- In the second case (23-19.841), the Court of Cassation overturned a decision by the trial court judges who, in annulling the dismissal based on disruption of the business due to the employee’s absence requiring his permanent replacement, merely noted that the employer was aware of a claim for recognition of an occupational disease filed by the employee with the CPAM.
Il appartient donc au juge prud’homal de se forger sa propre conviction sur l’ensemble des éléments portés à sa connaissance, car la prise en charge d’un arrêt de travail au titre de la législation sur les risques professionnels n’est pas de nature à constituer à lui seule la preuve de l’origine professionnelle de l’accident ou de la maladie.
Decisions : Cass. Soc., 10 septembre 2025, n°24-12.900 ; Cass. Soc., 24 septembre 2025, n°22-20.155
Discrimination against union members necessarily causes harm to the employee
The mere finding of union discrimination entitles the employee to compensation, without the employee needing to prove that such discrimination caused him or her harm.
While the Court of Cassation has gradually moved away from its so-called “necessary harm” doctrine, holding that the existence of harm and its assessment fall within the discretion of trial judges, a few exceptions remain. Union discrimination is thus one of these exceptions, alongside:
- The unjustified loss of employment by the employee;
- Exceeding the maximum daily or weekly working hours;
- Failure to observe the daily break time;
- An employee working while on sick leave or maternity leave.
In this case, the Court of Appeal recognized the existence of union discrimination against a staff representative who had been declared unfit for work, but did not award damages to the employee, notably on the grounds that the employee provided no evidence to substantiate the actual existence of the harm. The ruling was overturned, and the Court of Cassation clearly stated that the mere finding of union discrimination entitles the employee to compensation.
Decision : Cass. Soc., 10 septembre 2025, n°23-21.124
Employee video surveillance: Employers may only conceal cameras under strict conditions, or face a fine
In a decision dated September 18, 2025, the CNIL imposed a fine of €100,000 on La Samaritaine for temporarily installing hidden cameras in its storage areas in violation of the principles set forth in the GDPR, citing a rise in merchandise theft.
The CNIL received a complaint from an employee and launched an investigation, which revealed several violations. It took the opportunity to reiterate that, in order to be exceptionally authorized, the use of non-visible surveillance cameras must comply with strict conditions and notes that, pursuant to Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of the GDPR, the processing of personal data must be:
- Adequate, relevant, and limited to the purposes for which the data is processed;
- Lawful, fair, and transparent.
The CNIL does, however, allow exceptions to this prohibition under very specific circumstances (e.g., if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe that employees are committing irregularities and that these violations reach a certain scale).
To be authorized, a non-visible video surveillance system must meet certain requirements, namely:
- Be temporary
- Not be excessive (principle of data minimization): the data controller must refrain from collecting, storing, or processing data that is not necessary to achieve the intended purposes. This principle was disregarded by SAMARITAINE. Furthermore, the implementation of the system was not accompanied by appropriate safeguards to ensure a fair balance between the objective pursued and the protection of employees’ privacy.
Decision : Délibération CNIL SAN-2025-008 du 18 septembre 2025
