In February 2022, some of the employees of Case New Holland (CNH), a company specializing in the storage of spare parts for the agricultural world, went on strike to protest their working conditions which they considered poor. Among the strikers : seven employees protected by virtue of their union mandate or their mandate as member of the economic and social council.
The management of the company Plessis-Bellevilledissatisfied, then decided to dismiss these seven protected employees, accusing them of having blocked access to its two sites and thus preventing non-striking employees from going to the workplace. She had contacted the administration for this. But the labor inspectorate only authorized the dismissal of two employees.
A doubt about the materiality of the facts
In support of its requests, the company produced reports drawn up by bailiffs, who visited the company’s two sites during the strike. “The labor inspectorate rejected the company’s request on the grounds that there was doubt about the materiality of the facts, which could therefore not be considered as established,” recall the judges of the administrative court.
The CNH company did not want to stop there. Hence the referral to the Minister of Labor for a hierarchical appeal. “After examining each of the requests, the Minister of Labor considered that the facts were established, taking into account the probative force of the findings produced, and constituting an error. On the other hand, he considered that their seriousness did not justify the dismissal of the protected employees, with the exception of two of them.
The Minister of Labor disavowed
The administrative court therefore ruled on the legality of the decision of the Minister of Labor. It had to rule on whether the facts were established or not and then, if necessary, examine their seriousness with regard to the exercise of the right to strike. “This constitutes a right with constitutional value, but which is exercised within the framework of the laws which regulate it and in respect of the choice of non-striking employees not to participate and to go to their place of work” , explain the magistrates.
The court held that the facts noted by the bailiffs were authentic until proven otherwise and that, in this case, the actions accused of the seven employees were materially established, the latter having participated in blocking actions, preventing the entry of employees or heavy goods vehicles onto each of the two sites of the CNH Industrial company.
Limited scope in five out of seven cases
After estimating that blocking actions had indeed taken place, the court considered that “these facts were of an isolated nature and that their scope had been limited in five cases out of seven”. The seriousness of the facts was also mitigated by the seniority of the employees in the company and the absence of disciplinary history.
On the other hand, the court recognized the preponderant role played by two employees. They had contributed to blocking access to the Plessis-Belleville site and hindered the freedom of work of non-striking employees on several occasions, which justified their dismissal. Thus, five of the seven requests for dismissal authorization are rejected and two are validated.
The massive use of temporary work contested
The parties have two months to appeal the judgment.
In 2022, the strikers’ demands also focused on health. “Management must ensure the physical and moral health of staff,” their spokesperson said at the time. The massive use of temporary work was also mentioned. Just like equal pay. “We are asking for the same rights to be granted to temporary workers as to permanent workers,” said the staff representatives. Very severe with their management, the strikers even demanded the resignation of the head of the establishment and the director of human resources. Not sure that the dismissal of two site employees will calm things down…
