To date, the minimum unemployment benefit has only been granted in cases where the employment relationship has been terminated by mutual agreement, on the initiative of a worker or as a result of a debt relief. However, with the new provisions of the social code, the employer`s dismissal is opposed to an agreed allowance (Article 331 of the Labour Code) (workers` initiative) and will therefore set the minimum compensation for unemployment. The question therefore arises as to whether, from 2018, the termination of the employment contract under article 331 of the labour code will continue to be favoured by both parties as a legal reason for the termination of the employment relationship. The word dismissal puzzles some employers. They believe that dismissal means that an employee has been fired. In the world of unemployment benefit rights, “cessation” simply means the end of a working relationship. This term is used, no matter who divides the relationship. There are usually two types of redundancies – voluntary and involuntary. In this contribution, we focus on the rights to unemployment benefit based on voluntary redundancies. The collective termination agreements are part of the government`s 2017 labour law reform. These came into force on 1 January 2018 (in accordance with Articles L.1237-19 and the Labour Code). The most important condition for the performance of a valid reciprocal termination contract is the existence of “reasonable performance criteria” arising from the court decision.
The Supreme Court applies the validity of the reciprocal termination contract to the existence of a reasonable benefit from the worker`s point of view. The main reason for the Supreme Court`s “reasonable utility” criteria in reciprocal termination agreements is that, since the worker is granted termination of the employment contract by the employer with severance pay and severance pay, the preference for another method, which is not more advantageous, cannot be considered appropriate at the normal stage of his life. This is why, in several cases, and particularly in cases where the request for a reciprocal termination agreement is made by an employer, the Supreme Court expects, in addition to the legal rights allegedly paid in the event of dismissal by the employer and not by a reciprocal termination agreement, certain additional benefits equal to “reasonable benefits”. Several Supreme Court decisions have invalidated reciprocal termination agreements, effectively terminating the use of “employer termination” in the absence of additional payments or benefits and, as a result, related re-employment remedies have been accepted by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, when a worker is subject to a reciprocity contract, the payment of legal rights under a reciprocal termination contract – which would not have been paid in the event of ordinary termination – is considered a “reasonable benefit”. As a result, reciprocal termination agreements executed using such a method are generally considered valid. When a separation agreement is concluded, it surrounds the terms of the separation and, as a rule, will encourage the employee to sign an agreement that waives the right to sue the employer for improper dismissal. In this case, the employer would pay severance pay. This agreement is also called the termination or termination agreement. A redundancy agreement or redundancy contract can never contain a declaration that attempts to prevent the worker from claiming unemployment benefit. Since it is a legal right, we do not have and cannot dictate to them. For questions about mutual separation, separation agreements or other HR issues, please contact your decision partnerHR Human Resources at 1.888.828.5511.