News – Patchwork Avocats

Q: As an employer, how can I tell whether my fixed day-rate arrangements are exposed to litigation risk?

A legal audit of the fixed day-rate arrangements, conducted with an employment lawyer, identifies vulnerabilities across four areas: compliance of the conventional basis, adherence to the annual day cap, monthly monitoring of days worked, and traceability of annual review meetings. Early identification makes it possible to regularise the position before any litigation arises, which is always less costly than employment tribunal proceedings.

Q: I have been on a fixed day-rate arrangement for several years without having signed a written individual agreement: is the arrangement valid?

No. The absence of a written individual agreement is an independent ground for voidness of the fixed annual day-rate arrangement. This agreement must be formalised in the employment contract or a signed addendum. An employment lawyer can assess whether this situation gives rise to overtime arrears. For the employer, regularisation by addendum is only possible for the future and does not cover prior periods.

Q: My employer applied a 218-day arrangement when my collective agreement provides for 214 days: what can I claim?

According to the Cour de cassation ruling of 25 March 2026, total voidness of the arrangement is not established in this case. However, the excess days give rise to a top-up payment at the enhanced overtime rate. Over the three-year limitation period, the amount may be significant depending on the level of remuneration. An employment lawyer can calculate the exact top-up due and bring the claim.

Q: At what point is it advisable to consult an employment lawyer about a dispute relating to a fixed day-rate arrangement?

As early as possible, and before taking any formal step. Fixed annual day-rate arrangement issues are technically complex. A consultation with an employment lawyer makes it possible to assess the strength of the file, identify established breaches, estimate potential top-up amounts, and choose the most appropriate strategy, amicable negotiation, formal notice, or referral to the employment tribunal. For employers, this consultation is equally useful as a preventive measure.

Fixed annual day-rate arrangements: applying the wrong collective agreement does not render the arrangement void

Patchwork Avocats — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 12:06:04 +0000

Le forfait annuel en jours est un mécanisme d’organisation du temps de travail très prisé des entreprises pour sa souplesse, mais qui nourrit un contentieux abondant, en raison des conditions de validité strictes qu’il impose. A ruling of the Cour de cassation dated 25 March 2026 (n° 24-22.129) provides an important clarification: where an employer has applied a fixed annual day-rate arrangement (forfait annuel en jours) on the basis of a collective agreement that was not actually applicable to its business activity, this error does not automatically render the arrangement void, provided that the collective agreement actually applicable also authorises the arrangement.

Fixed annual day-rate arrangements: overview of the legal framework and validity requirements

A derogatory working time arrangement

The fixed annual day-rate arrangement is a regime that derogates from the ordinary rules governing working time. The employee’s working time is measured in days per year rather than in hours, which in principle excludes the application of the rules on overtime and maximum weekly working hours. The arrangement offers genuine flexibility for business organisation, but it is subject to cumulative validity requirements, non-compliance with which exposes the employer to significant litigation risk.

Validity requirements for the fixed annual day-rate arrangement

To be valid, a fixed annual day-rate arrangement must satisfy several requirements set out in Articles L. 3121-58 et seq. of the Labour Code. It must first be authorised by a company-level agreement or an extended collective agreement, which must in particular set the annual cap on days worked. It may only apply to employees who enjoy genuine autonomy in organising their working time and whose working hours cannot be determined in advance. Finally, it must be accompanied by an effective monitoring of the number of days worked and at least one annual review meeting covering workload, work-life balance, and remuneration.

Key point

The absence, or purely formal conduct, of the mandatory annual review meeting, as well as the absence of effective monitoring of days worked, are breaches that courts regularly sanction by declaring the arrangement void, with the consequence of reverting to the ordinary working time rules and ordering the payment of overtime over several years.

Abundant litigation, often avoidable

Fixed annual day-rate arrangements are one of the most frequent sources of employment tribunal disputes in French labour law. Recurring breaches include: inapplicable or non-extended collective agreements, absence of monitoring of days worked, non-existent or purely formal annual review meetings, and application of the arrangement to employees lacking sufficient autonomy. Any one of these deficiencies may suffice to render the arrangement void and give rise to entitlement to overtime pay, sometimes covering three years of arrears.

Fixed annual day-rate arrangement and wrong collective agreement: ruling n° 24-22.129 of 25 March 2026

The facts: 218 days based on the wrong collective agreement

In the case before the Cour de cassation, a company had implemented a fixed annual arrangement of 218 days on the basis of a collective agreement that did not, in fact, correspond to its principal business activity. The collective agreement actually applicable did authorise the use of a fixed annual day-rate arrangement, but capped it at 214 days per year, four days fewer than the arrangement actually applied.

The employee’s claim: voidness of the arrangement and overtime arrears

The employee argued that this error in the conventional reference rendered the arrangement entirely void. She drew the consequence typical of this type of dispute: a reversion to the ordinary working time rules and a claim for payment of overtime worked beyond 35 hours per week, potentially representing several years of salary arrears.

What was at stake

The voidness of a fixed annual day-rate arrangement carries considerable financial consequences for the employer: it gives rise to entitlement to payment for all hours worked beyond 35 hours per week, subject to the three-year limitation period. The financial exposure may amount to several tens of thousands of euros per employee concerned.

The Cour de cassation’s ruling: no voidness, but a limited salary top-up

The Cour de cassation did not follow the employee’s reasoning. It held that an error in the conventional reference does not render the arrangement void, provided that the collective agreement actually applicable to the company also authorised the use of a fixed annual day-rate arrangement. In other words, the employer’s error was an error as to the cap, not an error of principle.

The consequence is proportionate to the irregularity identified: the employee may only claim a top-up payment at the enhanced overtime rate in respect of days worked beyond the number of days authorised by the collective agreement actually applicable, that is, the four days in excess of the 214-day cap.

Fixed annual day-rate arrangements: scope and lessons of the ruling

A solution grounded in proportionality of sanctions

The Cour de cassation’s decision reflects a logic of proportionality between the irregularity identified and the sanction imposed. The employer had complied with the substantive requirement, relying on a conventional basis authorising the fixed day-rate arrangement, but had applied the wrong cap. Total voidness of the arrangement, with its massive financial consequences, would have been a disproportionate sanction for this error of reference.

A clear distinction: error of principle vs. error as to the cap

The ruling implicitly establishes a useful distinction. Where no applicable collective agreement authorises the fixed day-rate arrangement, voidness is compelled: the employer has failed to satisfy a substantive condition. By contrast, where the collective agreement actually applicable does authorise the arrangement but the employer has applied an incorrect cap by relying on the wrong instrument, the sanction is limited to regularising the identified excess.

Caution

This solution only applies where the collective agreement actually applicable authorises the fixed annual day-rate arrangement. If that is not the case, or if the other validity requirements (monitoring of days worked, annual review meeting, employee autonomy) are not satisfied, the arrangement remains fully exposed to voidness.

What the ruling does not cover

The scope of this ruling should not be overstated. The Cour de cassation is not validating poorly structured arrangements: it is ruling on a very specific scenario, an error in the conventional reference in a context where the arrangement remains authorised under the applicable law. All other grounds for voidness, absence of an annual review meeting, failure to monitor days worked, application to an ineligible employee, remain intact and continue to generate significant litigation.

Fixed annual day-rate arrangements: key takeaways for employers and HR teams

Verifying the collective agreement actually applicable

The first area of vigilance is documentary: ensuring that the collective agreement relied upon by the company does indeed correspond to its principal business activity, as defined by the APE code and the conventional classification. An error of reference, even in good faith, may expose the company to a salary top-up claim in respect of excess days and, in more serious cases, to voidness of the arrangement if the collective agreement actually applicable does not authorise it.

Checking the applicable day cap

The statutory cap is set at 218 days under Article L. 3121-64 of the Labour Code, but a collective agreement may provide for a lower cap, as was the case in the ruling of 25 March 2026 with a cap of 214 days. Applying an arrangement beyond the conventional cap exposes the employer to an enhanced-rate salary top-up claim for each excess day.

Securing monitoring and annual review meetings

Regardless of the robustness of the conventional basis, a fixed annual day-rate arrangement cannot withstand the absence of effective monitoring or the failure to hold annual review meetings. These obligations must be documented, dated, and retained: monthly records of days worked, written accounts of review meetings, and a traceable record of exchanges on workload constitute the essential evidence in the event of litigation.

Not overlooking employee eligibility

A fixed annual day-rate arrangement may only apply to employees falling within the categories covered by the agreement or collective convention, executives enjoying autonomy in organising their working time, or employees whose working hours cannot be determined in advance. Applying a fixed day-rate arrangement to an ineligible employee remains an independent ground for voidness, irrespective of any question relating to the cap or the conventional reference.

Checklist: 8 points to verify to secure a fixed annual day-rate arrangement

Does the collective agreement actually applicable to the company’s principal business activity authorise the use of a fixed annual day-rate arrangement?
Is the annual day cap applied consistent with that provided for by this collective agreement (and not by an incorrectly referenced agreement)?
Is the individual fixed-rate agreement formally set out in writing in the employment contract or a signed addendum?
Does the employee fall within the categories eligible for the fixed day-rate arrangement (genuine autonomy, indeterminate working hours)?
Is effective monitoring of the number of days worked in place and documented on a monthly basis?
Is the mandatory annual review meeting held, formalised in writing, and does it cover workload, work-life balance, and remuneration?
Are any overruns of the cap identified and regularised within the required timeframes?
Is the file in a condition to be produced in the event of an audit or dispute (agreement, monitoring records, review meeting minutes)?

Fixed annual day-rate arrangements: frequently asked questions for an employment lawyer

My fixed day-rate arrangement has never been the subject of an annual review meeting: can I claim overtime?

This is one of the situations most frequently submitted to an employment lawyer specialising in working time matters. The absence of an annual review meeting, or its purely formal conduct, without any genuine examination of workload, constitutes a breach by the employer of its statutory obligations. The Cour de cassation’s case law is settled on this point: such a deficiency renders the fixed annual day-rate arrangement void. The employee then reverts to the benefit of the ordinary working time rules and may claim payment for all hours worked beyond 35 hours per week, subject to the three-year limitation period. A precise analysis of the file, contracts, addenda, written exchanges, payslips, is essential to assess the potential top-up amount and the strength of the claim.

As an employer, how can I tell whether my fixed day-rate arrangements are exposed to litigation risk?

The first step is to conduct a legal audit of the fixed day-rate arrangements in place within the company, with the assistance of an employment lawyer. This audit covers four areas: compliance of the conventional basis, adherence to the annual day cap, existence and quality of monthly monitoring of days worked, and traceability of annual review meetings. In the vast majority of files reviewed, at least one of these points presents a vulnerability. Early identification makes it possible to regularise the position before any litigation arises, which is always less costly than employment tribunal proceedings.

I have been on a fixed day-rate arrangement for several years without having signed a written individual agreement: is the arrangement valid?

The absence of a written individual agreement is an independent ground for voidness of the fixed annual day-rate arrangement, separate from any question relating to the collective agreement or the annual review meetings. The individual fixed-rate agreement must be formalised in writing, in the initial employment contract or in an addendum signed by the employee. An employment lawyer can assess whether this situation gives rise to a claim for overtime arrears and assist the employee in pursuing an amicable or contentious resolution. For the employer, regularisation by way of an addendum is only possible for the future: it does not cover prior periods.

My employer applied a 218-day arrangement when my collective agreement provides for 214 days: what can I claim?

This situation corresponds precisely to the one decided by the Cour de cassation on 25 March 2026. Total voidness of the arrangement is not established, the Court held that an error in the conventional reference does not call into question the validity of the arrangement, provided that the collective agreement actually applicable also authorises it. However, the four excess days give rise to a top-up payment at the enhanced overtime rate. Over the three-year limitation period, and depending on the level of remuneration, the amount may be significant. An employment lawyer can calculate the exact top-up due and bring the claim against the employer or before the employment tribunal.

At what point is it advisable to consult an employment lawyer about a dispute relating to a fixed day-rate arrangement?

As early as possible, and ideally before taking any formal step. Fixed annual day-rate arrangement issues are technically complex: they involve collective labour law, working time law, and an extensive body of Cour de cassation case law. A consultation with an employment lawyer makes it possible to quickly assess the strength of the file, identify established breaches, estimate the potential top-up amounts, and choose the most appropriate strategy, amicable negotiation, formal notice, or referral to the employment tribunal. For employers, this consultation is equally useful as a preventive measure: it is always preferable to secure a vulnerable arrangement before an employee takes the initiative of bringing a claim.

Fixed annual day-rate arrangements: rigour in implementation remains the best protection

The ruling of 25 March 2026 provides a measured solution to a situation involving an error in the conventional reference, but it should not lead employers to relax their vigilance. The validity of a fixed annual day-rate arrangement rests on a set of cumulative requirements, each of which constitutes an independent litigation risk. Verifying the correct collective agreement, checking the caps, documenting monitoring, and formalising annual review meetings: these remain essential reflexes.

Our employment law firm advises employers and HR departments on the implementation, legal securing, and review of fixed annual day-rate arrangements, as well as on the management of working time disputes. Contact us.

L’article Fixed annual day-rate arrangements: applying the wrong collective agreement does not render the arrangement void est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Negotiated termination: employer contribution raised to 40% in 2026

Patchwork Avocats — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:13:14 +0000

Depuis le 1er janvier 2026, the employer-specific contribution levied on the portion of a negotiated termination indemnity exempt from social security contributions has been increased to 40%. This change, effective immediately, materially alters the overall cost of a negotiated departure, the conditions governing negotiation, and the documentation requirements for securing compliance.

1 – What changes on 1 January 2026: a 10-percentage-point increase in the employer contribution

1.1 – An increase that immediately affects the employer’s total cost

Negotiated termination (rupture conventionnelle) remains a widely used mode of consensual separation, but it has never been cost-neutral for the employer. In 2026, the employer-specific contribution applicable to the exempt portion of the severance indemnity is raised to 40%, generating a mechanical cost increase across all files where the exempt portion is material.

1.2 – What exactly does this cover?

This is not an ordinary payroll contribution assessed on wages, but a dedicated levy, due at the time of termination, calculated on a precise basis: the portion of the indemnity benefiting from an exemption from social security contributions, within the limits and conditions set by applicable legislation.

Key point

The contribution does not systematically apply to the entire indemnity paid, but only to the portion exempt from social security contributions. An approximate reading — “40% of everything” — may lead to either overestimating or underestimating the actual employer cost depending on the circumstances.

2 – Scope: covered terminations and the contribution base

2.1 – Individual negotiated termination: the most common scenario

The rupture conventionnelle applies to open-ended employment contracts (CDI) and is formalised by an agreement signed between the employer and the employee, subject to approval (homologation) by the competent administrative authority. With approximately 500,000 approved negotiated terminations per year, this mechanism has established itself as the primary mode of consensual separation of CDI contracts in France. The indemnity paid in this context may, depending on the parameters specific to each case, benefit from partial exemptions, upon which the employer-specific contribution is calculated.

On the litigation front, the long-term trend has been favourable: the number of challenges has been halved over ten years, reflecting a gradual appropriation of the mechanism by both parties. However, this trend warrants monitoring, as the volume of disputes is slightly increasing, at around 100,000 cases per year. This context reinforces the importance of a rigorous approach, particularly in high-stakes matters.

2.2 – Calculation base: the exempt portion and its threshold effects

The amount of the contribution depends on how the indemnity is apportioned between the exempt portion and the portion subject to social security contributions, CSG/CRDS, and income tax. The portion exempt from social security contributions is capped at twice the annual social security ceiling (PASS), i.e. €96,120 in 2026. It is on this portion — and within this cap — that the 40% employer-specific contribution is assessed. A given gross indemnity may therefore result in materially different employer costs depending on the employee’s status, length of service, reference remuneration, and applicable ceilings.

2.3 – The termination timeline: a budgetary variable in its own right

In 2026, the date on which the termination takes effect — i.e. the contract end date — becomes a planning parameter that cannot be overlooked. A negotiation concluded at the end of 2025, but whose termination takes effect in 2026, is not governed by the same rules as a departure that occurred on 31 December 2025. The consistency of the timeline — signing, withdrawal period, submission, approval, termination date — must be verified and documented in advance.

3 – Why this increase materially changes the landscape for employers

3.1 – Mechanical cost increase: a file-by-file impact

In files where the indemnity includes an exempt portion, the rate increase produces an immediate effect on the all-in cost of separation. This is particularly significant in situations involving multiple departures, collective mobility agreements, restructurings, or workforce reductions outside the scope of a statutory redundancy plan (plan de sauvegarde de l’emploi).

3.2 – Impact on negotiation: budgets, trade-offs, and timing

The rate increase is liable to alter the balance of negotiations, particularly where the employer reasons in terms of an overall budget envelope. In practice, this tends to result in revising indemnity proposals at constant cost, making different trade-offs between amount, timing, and notice period arrangements, and imposing stricter traceability and internal approval requirements.

3.3 – Cumulative risk: increased cost and exposure to litigation

The cost increase must not prompt employers to accelerate the process at the expense of legal soundness. A challenged negotiated termination generates cumulative risk: management costs, managerial disruption, reputational harm to the employer brand, and, in the most serious cases, reclassification of the termination or an award of damages.

Caution

The more conflictual the context — pre-existing disputes, internal alerts, occupational health issues, allegations of coercion — the more a negotiated termination requires a documented strategy and rigorous drafting.

4 – Accurate costing in 2026: methodology and best practices

4.1 – Reasoning in terms of total employer cost

To avoid discrepancies between decisions and actual budgetary impact, the employer must consolidate a comprehensive view encompassing all components: indemnity, employer-specific contribution at 40%, charges and taxation applicable to each portion, and ancillary items (paid leave, variable elements, bonuses, benefits in kind). A rigorous simulation is also a negotiating tool: it enables the employer to hold to a budget without compromising the quality of the relationship.

4.2 – Verifying the employee’s retirement status

The applicable regime may vary depending on whether the employee is or is not in a position to draw a pension. This verification, which is often deferred, may alter the anticipated cost and the structure of the indemnity. It must be carried out before the agreement is finalised.

4.3 – Securing proof of consent and process integrity

The legal soundness of a negotiated termination rests on the overall coherence of the file: structured exchanges, an effective cooling-off period, absence of coercion, dated and versioned documents, and strict compliance with the statutory withdrawal and approval deadlines.

5 – What HR departments and senior management need to update

5.1 – Calculation tools and internal procedures

Costing templates, indemnity grids, and departure procedures designed under the former rate must be updated. A discrepancy between decisions taken and their actual cost is particularly problematic when multiple terminations are processed simultaneously.

5.2 – Approval workflows

In a context of increased cost, it is advisable to clearly formalise approval thresholds: indemnity amount, negotiation margin, sensitive clauses (confidentiality, non-disparagement), and internal communication arrangements. A structured and traceable decision-making process reduces the risk of error and subsequent litigation.

5.3 – Oversight of managerial communications

The line manager often plays a central role in the conduct of the negotiation. Poorly calibrated statements — whether amounting to pressure, threats, or insufficiently precise commitments — may undermine the employee’s free consent and expose the company to challenge. Training, supervising, and documenting exchanges is a precaution whose cost is limited relative to the risk incurred.

6 – Checklist: 8 questions to address before signing

Has the cost been modelled as a total employer cost, including the contribution at 40%?
Is the proposed termination date consistent with the administrative timeline (withdrawal period + approval)?
Does the context present a risk of challenge (health, dispute, internal alert, discrimination)?
Is the employee’s free consent objectively documentable (cooling-off period, exchanges, absence of coercion)?
Has the employee’s retirement status been verified and factored into the analysis?
Have ancillary items (paid leave, variable elements, bonuses) been correctly treated and substantiated?
Are the ancillary clauses compliant and proportionate (confidentiality, non-disparagement, etc.)?
Is the file in a condition to be produced in the event of an audit or challenge (versions, dates, submissions, evidence)?

Securing negotiated terminations in 2026: a matter of budget, and of method

The increase in the employer contribution in 2026 requires updated reflexes: precise costing, early decision-making, and rigorous process management throughout. A negotiated termination is not a mere approved form: it is a process that must remain coherent on the merits and rigorous in form.

Our employment law firm advises executives and HR teams on separation strategy, negotiation, drafting, and the legal securing of negotiated terminations, including in sensitive contexts. Contact us.

L’article Negotiated termination: employer contribution raised to 40% in 2026 est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Reclassification of a service contract as an employment contract: what are the consequences?

Patchwork Avocats — Fri, 06 Feb 2026 11:15:51 +0000

A recent news story highlighted by Les Echos illustrates how sensitive the boundary between independent contracting and employment can be, particularly when it comes to social security contribution reassessments. In practice, a contract labelled “services agreement” is not enough: what matters is the reality of the relationship as it is experienced and organised on a day-to-day basis, so as to avoid the risk of reclassification as an employment contract.

Why is this topic back in the spotlight?

The debate over how to classify “independent contractor / principal” relationships is longstanding, but it becomes especially visible when major players are involved (UBER in this case). The key value of these high-profile matters is to reiterate a simple rule: contractual labels do not prevail over the facts.

For businesses (SMEs, mid-caps, start-ups, platforms, agencies, IT service providers, professional firms, etc.), the issue is very practical: a collaboration model involving freelancers, consultants or subcontractors may be challenged if, in practice, the organisation of the work resembles an employer/employee relationship.

Reclassification: what exactly are we talking about?

Reclassification means recognising that a relationship presented as independent (services, subcontracting, freelance, self-employed, micro-entrepreneur, etc.) in fact corresponds to an employment contract. Reclassification may be argued before the courts, and it may also have consequences in the event of a social security audit.

The central test: the relationship of subordination

The key factor is the relationship of subordination. In practical terms, this involves assessing whether the individual performs the assignment under the authority of a principal who gives instructions, monitors performance and has the power to sanction.

It is not the contract that matters most: it is day-to-day performance

A contract may be perfectly drafted yet “contradicted” by actual practices: overly directive oversight, reporting that amounts to hierarchical management, a lack of genuine autonomy, full integration into the team, etc. This is often where the risk arises.

Key warning signs for businesses

Below are common situations that may increase the risk of reclassification (to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as everything depends on the facts):

Imposed working hours or on-site presence (or de facto required availability)
Systematic reporting and approvals akin to hierarchical management
Exclusivity (or strong economic dependence) and extensive integration into internal operations
Tools, processes and methods imposed with no real latitude for autonomy
Ongoing, long-term engagement paid “monthly”, with no deliverables/project-based rationale

Conversely, genuine autonomy, a deliverables-based approach, an independent organisation and, often, a plurality of clients are factors that can help to secure independent contractor status.

What are the consequences of reclassification?

1) Social security consequences: contributions, reassessments and surcharges

Reclassification may lead to a challenge of the contributions paid on the basis of independent activity, with adjustments and, depending on the circumstances, surcharges. This is often the most immediate — and most costly — impact for the business.

2) Employment tribunal consequences: back pay and compensation

The “contractor” may seek recognition of an employment contract and then claim, depending on the circumstances, entitlements associated with employee status: back pay, paid leave, working time issues, and consequences relating to termination (for example, recharacterising a termination as a dismissal).

3) Additional risks: reputation, compliance and a domino effect

Beyond the financial aspect, reclassification can create reputational risk and trigger a domino effect on other similar relationships within the organisation. Hence the benefit of a global approach, not merely a “case-by-case” review.

4) In certain cases: issues related to concealed work

In specific situations (particularly where intent is at issue), reclassification may raise more sensitive questions. Each matter must be analysed carefully, in light of the facts, documentation and internal practices.

How to mitigate the risk: good practices (contract + operational reality)

Structure the engagement as a genuine service

Define clear deliverables, milestones, objectives and scope
Focus assessment on the outcome rather than the manner of performance
Provide for genuine organisational autonomy (method, hours, location where possible)

Avoid “HR reflexes” in day-to-day management

Limit practices that resemble hierarchical management
Manage access to internal tools and team integration (access where needed, assimilation no)
Be mindful of “indirect” sanctions (withdrawal of assignments, penalties, delisting, etc.)

Document and align practices

Implement an internal checklist for independent contractor engagements
Train operational teams (those who manage the assignment day to day)
Regularly reassess long-term engagements

How Patchwork Avocats can help

Our firm supports businesses and independent professionals to:

Assess reclassification risk (contracts + actual practices)
Secure services agreements and related documentation
Implement operational recommendations tailored to your organisation
Assist you in the event of an audit or dispute

Our recommendation: align the contract… and, above all, the operational reality.

Information purposes only: a tailored legal analysis may be required depending on your circumstances.

L’article Reclassification of a service contract as an employment contract: what are the consequences? est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Holding multiple jobs and the duty of loyalty : a competing activity may justify dismissal for gross misconduct

Patchwork Avocats — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 09:20:29 +0000

Setting up a micro-enterprise or developing a self-employed activity alongside salaried employment is becoming increasingly common.

In a decision of 14 January 2026 (No. 24-20.799), the French Court of Cassation (Social Chamber) reiterates that an employee may not, during the performance of their employment contract, create and carry on an activity that directly competes with their employer. And crucially: such competition may be sufficient to constitute gross misconduct, even if the activity is carried out outside working hours, without using the company’s tools, and even if it generates little (or no) turnover.

Key takeaways

Holding multiple jobs is in principle possible, but it must not compete with the employer.
The duty of loyalty applies throughout the contract, even without a non-compete clause.
A competing activity may justify dismissal for gross misconduct, even if it is “marginal”.

Understanding multiple activities in light of the duty of loyalty

1) Multiple activities: a generally accepted principle, but not a “right to compete”

An employee may, in principle, carry on another activity alongside their employment (for example, through a micro-enterprise), provided that it does not disrupt the performance of the employment contract and does not harm the employer’s legitimate interests.

Where difficulties begin is when the side activity operates in the same market, targets a similar customer base, or offers similar services. In that case, the issue is no longer mere “multiple activities”: it is competition.

2) The duty of loyalty: a continuous requirement during the contract

Employment law requires performance of the contract in good faith. In practical terms, this translates into a duty of loyalty: the employee must avoid conduct that creates a conflict of interest with their employer (competition, diversion of customers, use of internal information, harm to reputation, etc.).

An important point: this duty exists even if the contract contains no specific clause. In other words, the absence of a clause does not mean “complete freedom”.

3) Competing activity: how to identify it in practice

In litigation, the central question often becomes: is the side activity truly competing? Judges look at the reality of the facts, including:

the nature of the products/services offered (identical or very closely related);
the target market and customer base (shared prospects, same area, same needs);
communications (website, social networks, listings, advertising) and the risk of confusion;
the use of know-how, methods, or information acquired within the company.

An activity may therefore appear “small” or “occasional” yet still be characterised as competing if it is positioned on the same ground as the employer.

4) What the decision of 14 January 2026 (No. 24-20.799) says: competition may be enough to constitute gross misconduct

In the case at hand, an employee had created, during the employment relationship, a sole trader/micro-enterprise offering services in a field similar to that of the employer. The Court of Appeal had downplayed the impact of this activity, noting in particular its residual nature and the absence of a non-compete clause.

The Court of Cassation overturns that reasoning: where the side activity is competing during performance of the contract, certain arguments frequently relied upon become irrelevant, for example:

“I do it outside my working hours”;
“I don’t use any of the company’s equipment/tools”;
“My turnover is low (or nil)”;
“There is no non-compete clause”.

The message is clear: the mere fact of creating and carrying on a competing activity during the contract can constitute a serious breach of the duty of loyalty, capable of justifying dismissal for gross misconduct.

Good to know: gross misconduct is misconduct that makes it impossible to keep the employee in the company, including during the notice period. In this type of case, the debate therefore focuses on the characterisation of competition and the reality of the activity.

5) Don’t confuse: duty of loyalty (during the contract) and the non-compete clause (after the contract)

A non-compete clause generally applies to the period after termination of the contract, and is subject to a strict legal regime (validity conditions, proportionality, financial consideration, etc.).

Conversely, the duty of loyalty applies during performance of the contract, without needing to be expressly provided for. This is precisely why the absence of a non-compete clause does not protect an employee who carries on a competing activity during the contract.

6) From the employer’s perspective: securing the situation (and avoiding procedural missteps)

If you suspect a competing activity, the key is to respond methodically: intuition is not enough. The strength of the case often depends on evidence and legal characterisation.

Identify what is competing (services, customers, communications, geographic area, offering);
Document with usable elements (website, posts, listings, quotes, reports, statements);
Check that the evidence was obtained lawfully (no illegal surveillance);
Assess whether the sanction is proportionate in light of the facts.

Warning: in disciplinary matters, timing and the drafting of the allegations are decisive. A prior audit often helps avoid a challenge before the French Labour Court (Conseil de prud’hommes) based on inadequate legal characterisation or weak evidence.

7) From the employee’s perspective: how to start a business without putting yourself at risk

Starting a side business is possible… provided you do not step onto the employer’s ground. Before launching an activity, it is useful to ask yourself a few simple questions:

Am I offering the same thing (or almost) as my employer?
Am I targeting the same customers or prospects?
Could my communications create confusion?
Am I using know-how, methods, or information originating from the company?

If in doubt, it is better to secure things upfront (legal analysis, precise scoping of the offering, differentiation of the target) rather than expose yourself to disciplinary proceedings.

And if proceedings begin, it is essential to react quickly: an action challenging termination of the contract is in principle subject to a limitation period of 12 months from notification of the termination.

8) Conclusion: “multiple activities” yes, competition no

The 14 January 2026 case law forms part of a clear trend: the Court of Cassation protects the relationship of trust during performance of the contract. A side activity is not a problem in itself; it is a competing activity that causes the breakdown.

Whether you are an employer (risk prevention, disciplinary management) or an employee (starting a business, securing your project), a quick legal review can prevent serious consequences: Contact our firm

Reference: Cass. soc., 14 January 2026, No. 24-20.799.
Read the decision (Court of Cassation)

Note: this article is for informational purposes and does not replace legal advice tailored to your situation.

L’article Holding multiple jobs and the duty of loyalty : a competing activity may justify dismissal for gross misconduct est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Happy New Year 2026

Patchwork Avocats — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 15:57:27 +0000

As we begin the year, the entire Patchwork.Law team sends you our best wishes for 2026: good health, peace of mind, and every success in your projects.

In a demanding social and economic environment, we remain by your side with the same guiding principle: to secure your decisions, prevent risks, and deliver practical, operational solutions in employment law.

“Best wishes for 2026
May this new year bring peace of mind, shared success, and harmonious working relationships.
We are delighted to start 2026 alongside you, with the same enthusiasm and energy as ever.
Wishing you all a wonderful and happy year!”

2026: our priorities to support our clients in employment law

In 2026, we are strengthening our commitment: delivering cutting-edge expertise in employment and labour law, and solutions tailored to your challenges.

Our concrete commitments

Responsiveness in HR emergencies (suspension, disciplinary hearing invitation, internal crisis, sensitive communications)
Clarity: clear, prioritised, actionable recommendations
Risk-proofing: procedure, evidence, timeline, documentation
Pragmatism: a strategy adapted to your context (size, constraints, culture, exposure)

What we take away from last year

Prevention remains the best “investment”

In employment law, many disputes arise from details: a procedure, a document, or evidence that is not properly framed. In 2025, the most effective approaches were those combining legal certainty and traceability.

The human factor is at the heart of risk

Sensitive situations (tensions, alerts, breakdown of trust) require careful steering: listen, establish the facts, protect—and decide. Employment law is an area where form is often inseparable from substance.

L’article Happy New Year 2026 est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Decideurs Leaders League 2025 ranking

Patchwork Avocats — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:37:24 +0000

The 2025 Décideurs – Leaders League guide has just published its rankings. Patchwork Avocats has once again been ranked among the best law firms specializing in labor law.

Patchwork Avocats’ 2025 Décideurs distinctions

We are very proud to be ranked in the following five categories for the 2025 edition:

Excellent – Labor law – Representation of executives
High reputation – Labor law – High-risk individual litigation
High profile – Employment law – Reorganisation, social programs and related litigation
Renowned practice – Employment law – Collective bargaining and labor relations
Renowned practice – Employment law – Social management of M&A and social audits

These distinctions illustrate the firm’s ability to support executives in negotiating their departure or management package, manage sensitive disputes, steer transformations (restructuring, redundancy plans) and advise companies on anticipating, conducting and implementing their collective bargaining negotiations, while securing all their labor relations.

L’article Decideurs Leaders League 2025 ranking est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Unemployment insurance reform: what changes from April 1, 2025?

Patchwork Avocats — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:09:21 +0000

Coming into force on April 1, 2025, the unemployment insurance reform introduces a series of adjustments designed to adapt the scheme to changes in the labor market and budgetary balances. This reform, which applies to all jobseekers, has differentiated effects according to profile. In particular, it includes targeted measures for senior citizens and entrepreneurs. Here are the main changes to remember.

Monthly benefits: a standardized basis

One of the major changes introduced by the reform concerns the method of calculating benefits. These are now paid on the basis of a flat-rate month of 30 calendar days, regardless of the month of the year. This measure is designed to simplify the management of entitlements and ensure greater clarity for beneficiaries. It applies to all recipients, including those whose compensation began before April 1, 2025.

Jobseekers aged 55 and over: the reform

The reform includes specific changes for older jobseekers. Maximum compensation periods are now set at 685 days (22.5 months) for those aged 55 or 56, and 822 days (27 months) for those aged 57 and over. These changes are in line with our policy of adapting to longer working careers.

In addition, an important measure concerns the degressivity of unemployment benefit, which applies after six months of compensation to beneficiaries receiving a daily allowance above a certain threshold. Recipients aged 55 or over are now exempt, whereas previously this exemption only applied from the age of 57. The aim of this change is to provide better support for senior citizens in their return to employment, taking into account the increased difficulties they face.

Business start-ups: more restrictive rules for accumulating benefits

The system applicable to business start-ups has also been modified. To qualify for ARCE (Aide à la reprise ou à la création d’entreprise), the second instalment is now conditional on the absence of a full-time permanent employment contract. In addition, there is now a ceiling of 60% on the combination of the ARE (Allocation d’Aide au Retour à l’Emploi) with income from self-employment.

In the event of cessation of entrepreneurial activity, ARE rights can be reactivated, but only after application of a specific deferral period. These new rules are designed to provide a stricter framework for situations involving the accumulation of ARE rights, in order to ensure consistency with the objectives of a return to employment. In addition, an important measure concerns the degressivity of unemployment benefit, which applies after six months of compensation to beneficiaries receiving a daily allowance above a certain threshold. Recipients aged 55 or over are now exempt, whereas previously this exemption only applied from the age of 57. The aim of this change is to provide better support for senior citizens in their return to employment, taking into account the increased difficulties they face.

Intermittent workers and short contracts: technical adjustments

Other measures concern fragmented or seasonal career paths. The minimum period of employment entitling workers to compensation has been lowered to 5 months (from 6) over a reference period of 24 months. This measure is aimed in particular at seasonal or alternating workers with discontinuous career paths.

At the same time, the right to resume previous compensation is facilitated. Recipients who interrupt their unemployment to take up a short-term job – less than 88 days worked or 610 hours – will be able to recover their rights without having to reconstitute their entire period of affiliation.

Conclusion: what impact for vulnerable profiles?

While this reform is in line with a logic of accountability and budgetary efficiency, its effects are not uniform. Seniors, who face greater difficulties in accessing employment, benefit from certain protective measures, but also see the maximum duration of compensation slightly reduced before the age of 57. Entrepreneurs, for their part, will have to contend with stricter rules on accumulating benefits, likely to have an impact on their ability to secure their entrepreneurial career.

As Laurent Moreuil, partner at Patchwork, pointed out in an article published in Le Monde on 14.06.2024: “The delicate balances governing labor law and social protection are probably underestimated”.

A reflection that reminds us of the need to measure, beyond technical adjustments, the human and economic impact of each reform.

L’article Unemployment insurance reform: what changes from April 1, 2025? est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Happy New Year 2025

Patchwork Avocats — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:52:18 +0000

The Patchwork Avocats team would like to wish you all the best for 2025: may it be a year of success and fulfillment, both professionally and personally.

2024 was a year rich in achievements for our firm. We have had the pleasure of supporting our customers in a number of ambitious projects, meeting complex legal challenges together, and consolidating our commitment to excellence and innovation.

We owe our success to your trust and inspiring collaborations, which motivate us to continue evolving to offer you the best possible service.

In 2025, we remain determined to make your projects a success, and to support you with the same exacting standards and enthusiasm.

L’article Happy New Year 2025 est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

Decideurs 2024 ranking

Patchwork Avocats — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:55:26 +0000

Patchwork Avocats earns distinction in Décideurs 2024 ranking

Parisian law firm Patchwork Avocats, renowned for its expertise in labor and employment law, confirms its excellence by once again appearing in the prestigious Décideurs 2024 ranking. This distinction testifies to the recognition of the know-how and commitment of the firm’s lawyers to a demanding clientele.

Recognition in several Décideurs categories

The Décideurs 2024 ranking highlights Patchwork Avocats in several key categories, consolidating its position as a key player in its field. Notable distinctions include:

Restructuring, redundancy plans and related litigation

Individual risk litigation

Executive representation

The firm is acclaimed for its ability to handle complex cases involving senior executives, corporate officers and professionals with atypical statuses such as sportsmen and women, journalists and artists.

Collective bargaining and labor relations

M&A social management and social audits

Patchwork Avocats: A firm at the cutting edge of legal innovation

Founded on a resolutely human and collaborative approach, Patchwork Avocats stands out for its ability to actively listen to its clients’ needs and offer tailor-made solutions. This recognition by the Décideurs ranking crowns a year of achievements marked by :

Proactive management of post-crisis issues for businesses.
Innovative work on issues related to new ways of working, such as teleworking and hybrid contracts.
Strong involvement in public interest causes, particularly on issues of discrimination and equality in the workplace.

A team of excellence

At the head of this success story are passionate lawyers, including partners Laurent Moreuil, Stéphanie Ropars, Céline Bruneau and Lionel Kohn. Their expertise and dedication position Patchwork Avocats as a trusted leader in the French legal landscape.

A forward-looking vision

With this latest Décideurs 2024 award, Patchwork Avocats has confirmed its place as one of the most influential law firms in the field of employment law. This ranking reflects the firm’s rigorous work and avant-garde vision of legal and human issues, ensuring that its clients receive reliable and effective legal solutions.

In 2024, Patchwork Avocats continues to evolve, reinforcing its position as an essential strategic partner for companies and managers seeking high-level legal advice.

L’article Decideurs 2024 ranking est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.

The new Patchwork Avocats offices

Patchwork Avocats — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 05:48:15 +0000

The Patchwork Avocats team is delighted to announce its move to new offices:

“We are moving from our current premises at 46 rue de Provence, Paris 9ème, to a larger space at:

163 rue Saint Honoré 75001 Paris

Opposite the Comédie Française and a stone’s throw from the Place du Louvre.

We look forward to sharing this new adventure with you!”

New Patchwork Avocats address from July 1:
163 rue Saint Honoré 75001 Paris
Accès

L’article The new Patchwork Avocats offices est apparu en premier sur Patchwork Avocats.