“cleaning” does not have the same meaning in a cleanliness company and in a division where a new boss arrives. A computer director is dismissed for serious misconduct: “You have established a climate of tension and fear, with a desire to eliminate the old team for the benefit of collaborators hired by you, placing by your behavior M me G. on the verge of depression “, justifies the direction. A caricature of managerial harassment, a concept certainly blurred in the country of subordination, but hierarchically contagious disease when competition becomes fierce.
The IT director then seized justice to contest the gravity of his fault, because it is “in close connection with his hierarchy that he had led reorganization”. Neither serious misconduct nor even, in this case, for lack of real and serious, affirms the Court of Cassation on July 12, 2022. “Result of a managerial position shared and encouraged by all of his hierarchical superiors, the behavior of M. X did not make it impossible to maintain in the company, “specifies the stop.
The company is ordered to pay 24,120 euros in notice, 30,000 euros in damages for unfounded dismissal and even 10,000 euros for the vexatious conditions of this rupture. It seems logical that an employer, responsible for the health and security of his employees, cannot blame a “fault” with a framework whose mistakes he supported.
This decision wishing to sanction the high departments playing the Ponce Pilate seems more protective of the supervision than that of March 8, 2017, where the HR manager of a store had been dismissed, because she had remained inactive while the Director created “a climate of terror and humiliations”. The Court of Cassation had validated her dismissal, believing that “by questioning the director’s unacceptable managerial methods with whom she worked in very close collaboration, and letting them last, M x had missed his Contractual obligations and endangered both the physical and mental health of employees “. Easier to say than to do, when good soldiers are led by small chefs.
But, beyond the disciplinary aspect, there are also the very disturbing civil and criminal responsibilities. Can the at fault are continued in damages by one of his colleagues-victures, when the employer is civilly responsible for his employees? “Would they be committed in the interest, even on the employer’s orders, these necessarily intentional facts engage the personal responsibility of the employee who is guilty about his subordinates.” The cessation of the Chamber Social of November 10, 2010 is unfortunately ignored by the managers having been believed to be: “Don’t worry: in the event of a problem, we cover you!” But these prosecution is rare.
You have 17.64% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.