Labor Law Newsletter, June 2025
Regulatory
Decree on the Protection of Employees Against Heat-Related Risks
Effective July 1, 2025, this decree introduces new obligations for employers regarding the prevention of heat-related risks.
First, the Labor Code is amended so that certain existing obligations take heat-related risks into account. Thus, enclosed work areas must be maintained at a temperature appropriate for the workers’ activities; the provision and conditions of use of PPE must take atmospheric conditions into account; and the obligation to provide drinking water is now clearly intended to refresh workers.
Above all, a new obligation is created to prevent risks associated with “intense heat episodes.”
An “intense heat episode” is defined as the reaching of “yellow,” “orange,” or “red” alert thresholds reported by Météo-France as part of the national “heat wave” weather alert system.
The employer is first required to assess the risks associated with its employees’ exposure, indoors or outdoors, to these intense heat episodes. Once the risks have been assessed, the possible preventive measures outlined in the Labor Code are as follows:
- Implementing work processes that do not require exposure to heat or require less exposure;
- Modifying the layout and design of workplaces and workstations;
- Adapting work organization, particularly work schedules;
- Technical measures to reduce solar radiation on exposed surfaces and prevent heat buildup in work areas or workstations;
- Increasing the supply of cool drinking water available to workers;
- Selecting appropriate work equipment;
- Providing PPE;
- Informing and training workers.
In addition, during periods of intense heat, the employer must provide a sufficient quantity of cool drinking water. In buildings where running water cannot be provided, the amount of water made available to workers for drinking or cooling off must be at least 3 liters per day per worker.
Finally, the employer is required to adapt preventive measures to potential increases in heat and to the vulnerability of employees, and to establish procedures for reporting instances of discomfort or distress.
In the event of a failure to define appropriate preventive measures, the labor inspectorate is expressly granted the authority to issue a formal notice.
Companies would therefore be well advised to promptly conduct this risk assessment related to extreme heat events and, if necessary, update their single risk assessment document.
Decision : Decree No. 2025-482 of May 27, 2025, on the protection of workers from heat-related risks
Decree on the Long-Term Partial Activity Scheme (APLD-R)
Decree No. 2025-338 of April 14, 2025 implements the temporary APLD-R scheme, as provided for in the 2025 Finance Act. This scheme aims to prevent layoffs for economic reasons in companies facing a sustained reduction in activity that does not, however, threaten their long-term viability. Co-financed by the State and UNEDIC, the APLD-R allows employers to reduce working hours while maintaining employment through commitments regarding training and non-layoff.
The decree sets forth the content of sector-wide or company-level collective agreements implementing the program and establishes the maximum rate of reduced working hours (40%, or up to 50% with authorization).
The scheme is governed by a fully digital validation or approval procedure, open from April 16, 2025, to February 28, 2026, with authorizations granted in 6-month periods, renewable up to a maximum of 18 months out of 24. Employees receive compensation equivalent to 70% of their gross pay (capped at 4.5 times the minimum wage), increased to 100% in the case of training. The government then reimburses the employer for 60% of this compensation.
Decision : Decree No. 2025-338 of April 14, 2025, regarding the long-term partial activity scheme (rebound)
New Schedule for the Allocation and Payment of the Apprenticeship Tax Balance
In accordance with current regulations, companies have the option, instead of making a payment to the apprenticeship tax collector, to directly designate one or more institutions offering apprenticeship training, to which the balance of the tax will be allocated. Employers no longer make payments directly to the institutions. The Caisse des Dépôts centralizes and redistributes the funds according to the choices made on SOLTéA.
The Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations is responsible for ensuring the payment of funds according to the following schedule:
- Effective July 11, 2025, for funds allocated by employers during the period mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 1;
- November 7, 2025, and November 27, 2025, for funds allocated to beneficiary institutions in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article R. 6241-28 of the Labor Code.
The distribution of funds is carried out either:
- at the regional level, based on the geographic location of employers and institutions listed in Articles R. 6241-21 and R. 6241-22 of the Labor Code, with an identical amount allocated to institutions located within the same region;
- at the national level, based on the nature of the training programs offered, to benefit programs leading to occupations identified as being under particular strain due to a shortage of trained personnel. An identical amount is then allocated to each eligible institution for each eligible training program.
Decision : Order of May 23, 2025, regarding the schedule for the distribution and payment of the balance of the apprenticeship tax for the 2025 fiscal year
Jurisprudence
Des propos sexuels adressés à la cantonade peuvent qualifier le délit de harcèlement sexuel
A university lecturer was prosecuted in criminal court and then in the Court of Appeals on charges of aggravated sexual harassment for subjecting all the students in his classes to sexist and sexually suggestive remarks and behavior in an educational setting.
The Court of Cassation notes that sexual harassment consists of repeatedly subjecting a person to remarks or behavior of a sexual or sexist nature that either undermine their dignity due to their degrading or humiliating nature, or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for them.
The Court held that remarks of a sexual or sexist nature addressed to several people, or such conduct adopted in the presence of several people, are likely to be imposed on each of them.
Decision: Criminal Cassation, March 12, 2025, No. 24-81.644
A judge may declare the dismissal of a protected employee null and void even if the dismissal was authorized by the labor inspectorate
In this ruling, a protected employee was placed on sick leave following a work-related accident. Upon his return to work, the company failed to arrange a mandatory return-to-work examination. The employee was subsequently dismissed for economic reasons with the authorization of the labor inspectorate. He challenged his dismissal before the Labor Court.
The Court of Cassation reiterated that even in the presence of administrative authorization, the judge may rule on the employer’s breaches prior to the dismissal, particularly regarding occupational safety or health.
Decision: Cass. soc., March 26, 2025, No. 23-12.790
Reclassification of on-call duty as actual working time: requirement for a concrete assessment of the constraints faced by the employee
A hotel employee, who lived on the premises, was on call at night four times a week and sought to have all of this time reclassified as actual working time, on the grounds that he could not freely dispose of his time. The Court of Appeals partially dismissed his claim.
However, the Court of Cassation criticized the trial judges for failing to conduct a concrete assessment of the intensity of the constraints endured by the employee, and noted that pursuant to Article L. 3121-9 of the Labor Code and the case law of the CJEU, if the constraints are such that they objectively and significantly affect the employee’s ability to freely manage their time, then the on-call period must be reclassified as actual working time.
Decision: Cass. soc., May 14, 2025, No. 24-14.319
The withdrawal of a candidacy does not affect the validity of the union list in workplace elections
A union had filed a list for the employee representative body comprising eight candidates, arranged in alternating male-female order. Shortly thereafter, a female employee listed in sixth position on the list decided to withdraw her candidacy.
The Court of Cassation clarified that the assessment of a list’s validity with regard to balanced representation is made at the time of its submission, regardless of whether it subsequently becomes incomplete. The list was valid when it was submitted, and the subsequent withdrawal does not call into question that validity.
Decision: Cass. soc., May 21, 2025, No. 23-21.954
No Professional Security Contract Without Layoffs
In a ruling dated May 21, 2025, the Court of Cassation reiterated that the Professional Security Contract (CSP)—a measure reserved for employees facing layoffs due to economic reasons—does not apply in cases of voluntary resignation under an employment protection plan (PSE) that does not involve mandatory layoffs.
The ruling concerns two employees who voluntarily left their company after finding new jobs. They had signed a mutual termination agreement as part of a voluntary departure plan provided for in a collective agreement, with this plan forming part of an EJP that did not involve any involuntary layoffs. France Travail had nevertheless required the employer to pay a CSP contribution, arguing that the termination constituted an economic layoff and therefore required the employer to offer the program to the affected employees.
The Court of Appeal had followed this analysis, relying on Article L. 1233-3 of the Labor Code, which states that any termination for economic reasons, barring certain exceptions (collective contractual termination or GPEC), falls under the rules governing economic dismissal. The employer was therefore ordered to pay the corresponding contributions.
However, the Court of Cassation overturned this decision. It clarified that eligibility for the CSP requires an actual threat of dismissal. However, in the case of a voluntary departure approved as part of a voluntary separation plan, there can be neither a threat of dismissal nor the initiation of dismissal proceedings. The termination is therefore classified as a mutual termination of the employment contract, excluding eligibility for the CSP. Employees also cannot challenge the economic grounds for the termination, except in cases of fraud or defect in consent.
Ultimately, this ruling reinforces the position that the CSP can only be imposed on the employer when the employer carries out a genuine economic dismissal. In the absence of a dismissal procedure, even in the context of economic reorganization, the obligations associated with the CSP do not apply.
Decision: Cass. soc. May 21, 2025, No. 22-11.901
Dismissal of a Pregnant Employee: The Court of Cassation Upholds the Use of a Reason Unrelated to Pregnancy in Cases of Proven Psychosocial Risk
An employee, after several periods of leave, was placed on sick leave shortly after returning to work. The occupational physician declared her fit to return to her position, but the employer excused her from work pending the conclusions of the Health, Safety, and Working Conditions Committee (CHSCT), which had been referred to by nine colleagues citing a deterioration in working conditions and psychosocial risks (PSRs) linked to the employee’s return.
The CHSCT report concludes that there are serious psychosocial risks if the employee returns to her position, both for the team and for herself. The labor inspectorate, which was also consulted, concurs with this assessment. In this situation, the employer offers the employee an equivalent position at another facility, which she refuses.
During a pre-dismissal meeting, the employee informed her employer of her pregnancy. Despite this, she was terminated on the grounds that it was impossible to continue her employment contract, a decision she challenged in court, arguing that the termination was invalid and that the employer had breached its duty of care.
In this case, the Court of Cassation rejected the employee’s claims: it upheld the dismissal, finding that the employer had fulfilled its duty of care by offering a reassignment consistent with the employee’s hierarchical level and skills. In the absence of acceptance, retaining the employee in her original position exposed both her and her colleagues to serious psychosocial risks, constituting an objective impossibility of continuing the contract for a reason unrelated to her pregnancy.
Decision: Cass. soc., May 27, 2025, No. 23-23.549
