Labor law newsletter May 2026
Regulatory Section
Mandatory Negotiation: The employer may not conclude the agreement contingent on a majority vote, nor may it set a deadline for signing prior to the drafting of the minutes of disagreement
The employer may not require that an agreement be approved by a majority vote to be concluded.
For the first time, the Court of Cassation has ruled that Article L.2232-12 of the Labor Code, which expressly provides for two methods of concluding a company-level agreement—the majority route (more than 50% of the votes) and, failing that, the minority route (more than 30% of the votes with validation through employee consultation), as well as the principle of good faith in negotiations, prohibit the employer from concluding a collective agreement contingent on a majority vote or from refusing to sign such an agreement with a representative union that meets the 30% threshold.
Furthermore, the Court of Cassation notes that pursuant to Article L.2242-5 of the Labor Code, mandatory negotiations cannot be considered concluded until a formal record of disagreement has been drawn up. The employer may therefore not unilaterally set a closing date before the conclusion of such a record.
Decision: Cass. Soc., April 15, 2026, No. 24-15.653
Employee Geolocation: Clarifications on the Conditions for Using This System to Monitor Working Hours
The Court of Cassation has ruled that a geolocation system may be lawfully used to monitor working hours, provided that:
- such monitoring cannot be carried out by any other means,
- the employees concerned do not have the freedom to organize their own work.
In this case, the Lyon Court of Appeal, followed by the Court of Cassation, found that the autonomy of newspaper delivery workers was very limited and that there was no credible alternative to geolocation, which constitutes a reliable and objective tool for ensuring compliance with labor law.
Decision: Cass. Soc., March 18, 2026, No. 24-18.976
Freedom of trade union expression and confidentiality of CSE information: the public dissemination of an opinion issued by the CSE may constitute a manifestly unlawful disturbance
According to the Court of Cassation, the confidential nature of the information contained in the minutes of a CSE meeting is sufficient to justify prohibiting its disclosure in light of the company’s legitimate interests in a competitive environment. A manifestly unlawful disturbance, justifying the removal of the information from the union’s website, can therefore be established:
Decision: Cass. Soc., April 1, 2026, No. 24-19.613
Fixed-day work arrangements: an error in the collective bargaining agreement results in compensation rather than automatic invalidation of the arrangement
According to the Court of Cassation, the fact of having entered into a fixed-day-rate agreement based on a collective bargaining agreement subsequently deemed inapplicable—and providing for a number of days exceeding that set by the collective bargaining agreement to which the company is actually subject—does not in itself affect the validity of the individual agreement. The employee concerned may nevertheless claim back pay at an increased rate for the time worked in excess of the fixed-rate limit provided for in the collective bargaining agreement that is actually applicable.
Decision: Cass. Soc., March 25, 2026, No. 24-22.129
Case Law Section
The bill on combating social security and tax fraud was passed by the Senate
The “Fraud” bill, adopted on May 11, 2026, by the Senate, provides the following provisions regarding social security fraud:
- Loss of entitlement to continued salary and supplementary benefits paid by the employer in the event of proven fraud by the employee to obtain daily social security benefits (IJSS);
- Sick leave orders issued via telemedicine may not be renewed through this method;
- An increase in the surcharge rate on contributions in cases of undeclared work, raised to 45% in general cases or 60% and 70% depending on the severity of the concealment;
- An administrative fine of up to €4,000 per affected employee may be imposed for failure to file a DUERP, or a simple warning may be issued, without this being combined with the criminal penalty of €7,500 for a legal entity.
The Constitutional Council was referred to on May 18, 2026.
Update to the CNIL’s recommendations on electronic voting
The CNIL updated its recommendations regarding the use of electronic voting in workplace elections through a decision dated March 19, 2026, and stipulates, in particular:
- the prior publication of the technical specifications of the voting protocol, or even the source code for the most sensitive elections. Voters must also receive, in advance, a notice regarding the processing of their personal data;
- a new simplified risk assessment grid for elections based on the organizational and technical risks posed by the election;
- the requirement for an independent assessment prior to the first use of a voting system and also when the election presents a high level of risk (level 3)
The CNIL specified that these new recommendations do not apply to elections currently being prepared and scheduled for 2026.
Document: Recommendation on the security of electronic mail-in voting systems, March 19, 2026
New CNIL Guidelines on Retention Periods for Personal Data in Human Resources Management
The CNIL has published guidelines setting out the various mandatory or recommended retention periods for personal data used in human resources activities, particularly for data collected during recruitment and the administrative management of personnel, compensation, and company vehicles, as well as for security-related records and telephone call recordings. The CNIL reiterates the retention periods for reports submitted in connection with workplace alerts.
Document: Guidelines “Retention Periods for Personal Data, Human Resources Management,” April 2, 2026
