Cass. Soc., July 10, 2024 no. 23-13.551<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The pre-electoral protocol sets out the terms and conditions for organizing professional elections, in particular the date and time limit for submitting candidacies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the case in question, the pre-electoral protocol set the deadline for submitting candidacies for the second round of voting at 12 noon on Tuesday November 22, 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, an employee submitted her candidacy at 12:09 p.m., i.e. nine minutes after the expiry of the deadline. Furthermore, the employee did not bother to specify the college or even the ballot concerned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result, the employer brought an action before the Court of First Instance to have the employee’s candidacy annulled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question of the regularity of the candidacy was of particular importance insofar as it was filed 7 days after the employee had been summoned to an interview prior to a disciplinary dismissal…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As candidates in professional elections are protected against dismissal for a period of 6 months, there was a risk that the dismissal could be called into question if the judge deemed the application to be in order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Surprisingly, the N\u00eemes Court refused to annul the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the judges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– The extreme brevity of the delay in the candidacy had not disrupted the voting process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– The vagueness of the candidacy was irrelevant, since the employee could only be elected in the college concerned by the vote, and could put forward her candidacy as a titular and substitute member…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the Court, the employer had not been misled and had indeed included the employee’s candidacy in the college of permanent employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This decision was more than open to criticism, since it was tantamount to considering that the rules laid down in the pre-electoral protocol, negotiated by the social partners, were ultimately of little importance…<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court of Cassation censured this judgment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– It points out that the procedures for organizing the ballot, laid down in a pre-electoral protocol whose validity is not contested, are binding on the employer, the trade unions and all candidates taking part in the elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– It then ruled that the candidacy was irregular, as it had not complied with the deadline and formalities for candidacy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Cass. Soc., July 10, 2024 no. 23-13.551 The pre-electoral protocol sets out the terms and conditions for organizing professional elections, in particular the date and time limit for submitting candidacies. In the case in question, the pre-electoral protocol set the deadline for submitting candidacies for the second round of voting at 12 noon on Tuesday […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-publications-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n