French labour law - Live Entertainment – Workplace Harassment, Undeclared Work = Judicial Termination of Employment Contract of a Head Builder Awarded €67,000 (Paris Court of Appeal, 10/ 15th/ 2025)
In a detailed 20-page ruling dated October 15th, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal ordered the judicial termination of the employment contract of a head builder at Manoir H.
The breaches identified by the Paris Court of Appeal included workplace harassment, undeclared work, breach of safety obligations, non-payment of overtime, failure to comply with maximum daily and weekly working hours, and failure to respect weekly rest periods.
The Court of Appeal ordered the judicial termination of the employment contract with the same effect as a wrongful dismissal.
In total, the head builder was awarded €67,000 gross.
1) SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The company Le Manoir H, which operates amusement attractions, hired Mr. X on an open-ended employment contract starting May 24, 2017. He was initially hired as a multi-skilled "Worker" (mechanic, electromechanical technician), and was subsequently promoted to "Head Construction Manager" in September 2017. The reference salary was set at €2,905.04 gross per month.
The contractual relationship was governed by the national collective bargaining agreement for leisure, attraction, and cultural venues.
Mr. X went on sick leave starting September 28, 2020.
On December 8, 2020, he reported a situation of workplace harassment by letter, stating that he was experiencing excessive workload and a deterioration of his working conditions that had negatively impacted his health.
Mr. X filed a claim with the Paris Industrial Tribunal on March 9, 2021, seeking the judicial termination of his employment contract.
By judgment dated December 6, 2021, the Paris Industrial Tribunal ruled as follows:
"Orders the termination of Mr. X's employment contract due to the exclusive fault of the company Le Manoir H, effective December 6, 2021;
Orders the company Le Manoir H to pay Mr. X the following sums:
- €5,000 in damages for Le Manoir H's failure to fulfill its obligation to ensure the health and safety of its employees;
- €3,853.05 in back pay for overtime worked between March 2018 and May 2019"
- €385.30 for accrued paid leave
- €5,000 in damages for failure to comply with the maximum weekly working hours
- €5,810.08 as compensation in lieu of notice
- €581 for accrued paid leave
- €3,268.17 as statutory severance pay
- €8,715.12 as compensation for unfair dismissal
Notes that, pursuant to Article R.1454-28 of the French Labor Code, these awards are provisionally enforceable by right, up to a maximum of nine months' salary, calculated on the average of the last three months' salary.
Sets this average at €2,905.04;
Orders the delivery of employment-related documents and a summary payslip, all in accordance with this decision;
Orders Le Manoir H to pay Mr. Laurent-X the sum of €1,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
Orders Le Manoir H to reimburse Pôle Emploi (the French public employment service) for the equivalent of 15 days of unemployment benefits pursuant to Article 1235-4 of the French Labor Code;
Dismisses Mr. X's remaining claims;
Dismisses Le Manoir H's claim pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure;
Orders Le Manoir H to pay all costs.
At the time the termination notice was presented, Mr. X had 4 years and 6 months of service.
His average gross monthly salary was last €2,905.04.
The company Le Manoir H regularly employed at least eleven employees at the time of the termination of the contractual relationship.
Manoir H appealed this judgment by filing a declaration electronically on April 11, 2022.
By judgment dated February 1, 2024, the Paris Commercial Court initiated insolvency proceedings against Le Manoir H and appointed SELARL Abyme, represented by Mr. Y, as the insolvency administrator of Le Manoir H.
By summons for forced intervention served on October 15, 2024, on the legal entity,
SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y, as the insolvency administrator of Le Manoir H, was joined as a party to the proceedings.
No representation of counsel has been filed for SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y in his capacity as judicial liquidator of the company Le Manoir H.
The initial submissions of the company Le Manoir H will therefore be considered for the examination of the dispute.
By summons for forced intervention served on November 8, 2024, on the legal entity, the AGS (Wage Guarantee Fund) was joined as a party.
No representation of counsel has been filed for the AGS.
2) REASONS
In its judgment of October 15, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal:
Reversed the judgment except insofar as it ordered the termination of the employment contract of
Mr. Laurent X due to the exclusive fault of the company Le Manoir H, effective December 6, 2021;
Ruling again on the overturned points and adding thereto,
Fixes Mr. X's claim against the liabilities of the company Le Manoir H at the following amounts:
- €8,000 as damages for psychological harassment;
- €5,000 as damages for breach of the duty of prevention de la santé et de la sécurité ;
- €3,000 in damages for failure to comply with the maximum daily working hours, in violation of Article L. 3121-18 of the French Labor Code;
- €3,000 in damages for failure to comply with the maximum weekly working hours;
- €3,000 in damages for failure to respect weekly rest periods;
- €15,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal;
- €5,810.08 as compensation in lieu of notice;
- €581 for accrued paid leave;
- €3,268.17 as statutory severance pay;
- €6,775.05 gross as back pay for overtime worked between March 2018 and May 2019;
- €677.50 gross for accrued paid leave;
- €12,928.56 as a lump-sum indemnity for undeclared work.
Orders SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y in his capacity as judicial liquidator of the company Le Manoir H, to provide Mr. X with the certificate of employment, pay slips, and the certificate intended for France Travail, all of which must be prepared in accordance with the ruling in this decision.
Dismisses the claim for default interest with respect to damages.
Declares that the other sums awarded, which constitute wage claims, will accrue interest at the statutory rate from the date of receipt by the company Le Manoir H of the summons to appear before the conciliation board until the date of the judgment opening the insolvency proceedings on February 1, 2024.
Declares this judgment enforceable against the AGS (Wage Guarantee Fund).
States that the sums awarded to Mr. X will be guaranteed by the AGS (Wage Guarantee Fund) within the legal limits of the ceiling applicable on the date of termination.
Dismisses Mr. X's claim under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Dismisses all other and contrary claims by the parties.
Orders SELARL B, represented by Mr. Y in his capacity as judicial liquidator of the company Le Manoir H, to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.
2.1) Regarding the request for judicial termination
The lower court judges ordered the judicial termination of the employment contract due to the employer's fault, finding that the company Le Manoir H had committed serious breaches making the continuation of the employment contract impossible, namely:
- an excessive workload constituting psychological harassment and a breach of the obligation to ensure health and safety, given that Mr. X regularly worked beyond 7:00 p.m.; furthermore, he was required to supervise temporary employees and external contractors, which constituted an additional workload;
- work performed without protection and outside his scope of expertise, particularly when he was required to work on the roof of the building to clean the gutters without the employer providing him with adequate safety equipment;
- non-compliance with legal and regulatory provisions relating to working hours.
The court concluded that these shortcomings, particularly the abnormal working hours, had contributed to the deterioration of Mr. X's physical and mental health, thus justifying the termination having the effects of a dismissal without just cause.
By way of appeal, the company Le Manoir H contests the serious breaches alleged against it; it maintains that Mr. X's workload was reasonable, that it fulfilled its safety obligations, and paid all overtime owed.
The employer maintains that:
- Mr. X never experienced an excessive workload and that his working conditions were good;-
Mr. X himself emphasized his versatility during the hiring process, as evidenced by his cover letter and resume (documents no. 24 and 25, not produced);
- his responsibilities were clearly defined, and he was not the line manager of the entire artistic team, a role held by Ms. To., as demonstrated by her report (employer document no. 104, not produced).
- the company consistently ensured that it avoided any overload by using external service providers and temporary employees during peak periods, such as the creation of "MAD DIMENSION" or the opening of the Brussels site, as evidenced by the service provider invoices and temporary employment contracts (documents no. 5 to 13 and 48, not produced);
- The company allegedly even hired Mr. X's partner and friends on his recommendation to ensure good team cohesion (documents no. 10, 11, and 46 were not produced).
Mr. X requests confirmation of the judgment regarding the judicial termination of his employment contract and reversal of its effects, primarily requesting a ruling that the dismissal is null and void; secondarily, he requests confirmation of the dismissal being without just cause.
It is established case law that an employee may request the judicial termination of their employment contract due to breaches by their employer of their obligations that are sufficiently serious to make the continuation of the employment contract impossible. The burden of proof lies with the employee requesting the judicial termination of the employment contract to demonstrate that the employer has committed sufficiently serious breaches of its obligations to prevent the continuation of the employment contract.
The court must therefore examine the arguments based on psychological harassment, breach of the duty of care, and non-compliance with legal and regulatory provisions relating to working hours.
To read the full article, click on the link below.
Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)
e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr
.Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
.Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
.Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24
Commentaires
Rédigez votre commentaire :
Les réactions des internautes
<% comment.content %>
<% subcomment.content %>