Labor Law Newsletter March 2026
Regulatory Section
Use of the Personal Training Account
Two decrees dated February 24, 2026, specify the new eligibility requirements for certain training programs under the Personal Training Account. The decrees establish:
The new maximum amounts available for use from the CPF are set as follows:
- €1,500 for training programs leading to certifications and accreditations listed in the specific directory, with the exception of certification related to the core professional knowledge and skills
- €1,600 for skills assessments. One of the decrees specifies a 5-year waiting period, meaning that the CPF cannot be used to fund a skills assessment if it has already funded one within the past 5 years through a public or joint funding body.
- €900 for preparation for the theoretical and practical tests for driver’s licenses for light-duty motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars, etc.). Note that the use of the CPF is restricted to job seekers or when the preparation is funded by a third party (such as an employer). The minimum amount of third-party funding is set at €100.
Text: Decrees 2026-126 and 2026-127 of February 24, 2026
Clarifications from the Ministry of Labor Regarding Career Path Reviews
The Ministry of Labor provides the following clarifications:
- Regarding the concept of seniority: periods during which the employment contract is suspended and not considered actual working time are not taken into account when calculating the timeframes for scheduling a career path review, unless collective bargaining agreements provide for more favorable terms. In the event of a legal transfer of the business, the employer must resume the interview cycle. In other cases, the employee’s seniority is not carried over.
- Transition between interview schedules: The Ministry clarifies that the new, longer timeframe begins at the same starting point as the previous one.
- CPF employer contributions: The penalty regarding employer contributions in the event of the absence of a performance review over the past 8 years in companies with at least 50 employees also applies to mid-career reviews. The Ministry also specifies that the conditions for justifying these obligations are cumulative.
- Agreements adapting the rules regarding career path reviews: The Ministry specifies that the obligation to negotiate applies only to agreements that modify the frequency of reviews and provide for an interval of more than 4 years between two reviews. Otherwise, their provisions regarding the frequency of reviews will lapse on October 1, 2026, and the statutory provisions will apply.
Decision : Q&A from the Department of Labor dated February 12, 2026, on the performance review
Case Law Section
Failure to Negotiate Wages: Employer Faces Penalties for Failing to Hold Elections
According to the Court of Cassation, failure to comply with the obligation to hold elections constitutes a breach by the employer that does not exempt the employer from the obligation to engage in mandatory wage negotiations. The employer is therefore subject to a financial penalty, pursuant to Article L2247-7 of the Labor Code.
It should be noted that, as of today, the penalty is capped at an amount equivalent to 10% of social security contribution exemptions.
Decision: Cass. 2nd Civ. 2/19/2026 No. 23-20.103 F-B
Challenge to a decision on coverage – a referral to the CRA does not bind the employer’s arguments before the Judicial Division
An employer who challenges the enforceability against them of a decision to cover the costs of a disease reported by one of their employees under occupational health legislation may, in their judicial appeal, raise grounds other than those raised before the Commission for Amicable Recourse (CRA), provided they relate to the previously contested coverage.
Decision: Civil Cassation, 2nd Chamber, February 19, 2026, No. 24-10.805
Redundancy – a redeployment group may be recognized among companies controlled by the same individual executive
The Court of Cassation clarifies the concept of “group” for the purpose of assessing the obligation to redeploy employees in the event of redundancy.
It follows from Article L 1233-4, paragraph 1, of the Labor Code that the employer is required to seek the redeployment of the employee within the national territory, within the company or, where applicable, within the companies of the group to which it belongs, whose activities, organization, or place of operation allow them to transfer all or part of the staff, regardless of whether or not they belong to the same sector of activity.
In this regard, it holds that the scope of the group is assessed in light of the control criteria defined by the Commercial Code, even when such control is exercised by a natural person acting as a manager.
Thus, when a natural person holds the majority of voting rights in two companies, the conditions for control set forth in Article L. 233-3, I of the Commercial Code are met, which may allow for the characterization of a group within the meaning of the reclassification obligation.
Decision: Cass. Soc., February 11, 2026, No. 24-18.886
Economic layoffs of a protected employee: the threat to competitiveness may result from the foreseeable decline of the industry
The preservation of competitiveness is one of the economic grounds that may justify the layoff of a protected employee, provided that the reality of the threat is established.
The Council of State explicitly states that this threat may result from:
- Either the foreseeable deterioration of the company’s competitive position,
- Or the foreseeable deterioration of the industry itself.
Even if a company’s competitive position is not threatened, it is still possible to invoke the need to safeguard competitiveness when the industry itself is threatened.
Decision: Council of State, February 11, 2026, No. 497016
Invasion of Privacy Through Disclosure of an Employee’s Address
By forwarding to a union a letter sent by an employee to the employer without taking care to black out her address, the human resources director disclosed the employee’s address without her consent, which constitutes an invasion of her privacy.
Decision: Cass. soc. 2/11/2026 No. 24-18.087 F-D
