Competition of regular and contract offers: Employees are offered only the most favorable

In labor law, there are several standards that impose certain obligations on you:

Constitution, Law, Conference and Collective Agreement, Employment Agreement etc. They respond to a specific step to determine the standard of compatibility during a conflict.

You can download the hierarchy of standards below.

So every standard must respect those above it. The rules of collective traditions and contracts change the clauses of existing employment contracts as they come into force.

This step is subtle with a positive principle. It involves applying the standards that apply to your employees. This policy of advantage leads to the prevailing rules of employment contracts being more favorable than those resulting from collective agreements and contracts. Therefore less favorable contract terms were not used.

To learn more about the hierarchy and pronunciation of the various standards in labor law, we recommend the “Simplified Personnel Management” document.

Therefore, if there is competition between the terms of the contract and the terms of the contract, the benefits of the same object or the same cause, unless otherwise imposed, cannot be combined. Only the most favorable of them is offered to the employee. This is what the Cassation Court recently pointed out.

In the case filed in the Cassation Court, an employer set up a production bonus. Before removing it after a few years and establishing a visit bonus by collective agreement.

An employee grabs an industrial tribunal to get a reminder of a production bonus. And related paid leave pay. Because she realized it was a contract element.

Even so, the employer argued that the employee could not benefit by combining both the production bonus and the attendance bonus. According to him, these two bonuses were rewarding by encouraging an effective presence in the employee’s workplace. Thus the same object and the same reason were put forward. Therefore, the employee can claim the most favorable plan only after comparing the terms and conditions for awarding and calculating the specific bonus.

The Court of Appeals ruled otherwise. The two bonuses were based on the fact that the employee was in the workplace. But the production bonus is subject to certain criteria (depending on one year of seniority, status, step and annual bonus, depending on the employee’s value estimate by the operations manager). So these premiums do not have the same purpose in its view. So the production bonus cannot change the attendance bonus.

The company challenged this decision. Further, as the Court of Appeals awarded the employee a production bonus, the employer reimbursed him for the attendance bonus he received for the entire period.

The Court of Cassation states that if there is a competition between the terms of the contract and the terms of the contract, the benefits of the same object or the same cause, rather than the terms, cannot be accumulated. Only the most favorable of them can be offered.

In this case, the Court of Appeals did not classify that the production and attendance bonus were not for the same purpose. The Cassation Court therefore transferred the case to another appellate court.

Sign up for our alerts so you do not miss updates on your collective agreement.

Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, May 11, 2022, no. 21-11.240 (In case of competition between the terms and conditions of the contract, Benefits with the same substance or the same cause, unless otherwise imposed, cannot be combined. Can only provide the most favorable of them.)