When there is no vitiated consent, moral harrassment does not nullify a mutually agreed termination
Publié le :
26/02/2019
26
février
févr.
02
2019
Collective mutually agreed termination (« rupture conventionnelle collective »), a method of termination of the employment contract in which employer and employee sign an agreement to terminate, later approved by the administration, has met with great success. To be valid, it is necessary to ensure the free and informed consent of each of the parties. This is not always the case when the employee has signed an agreement in a context of proven moral harassment. On this point, the French Supreme Court has already considered that it was necessary to cancel the termination agreement signed by an employee who had found herself in a situation of
moral violence due to harassment.
However, it is up to the employee to prove that the psychological harassment has vitiated his consent. Indeed, the existence of acts of moral harassment does not automatically entail the nullity of the termination agreement, as the French Supreme Court has just recalled.
Historique
-
When there is no vitiated consent, moral harrassment does not nullify a mutually agreed termination
Publié le : 26/02/2019 26 février févr. 02 2019NewsCollective mutually agreed termination (« rupture conventionnelle collective ...
-
"Opposabilité d’un accord tacite des Urssaf : les situations doivent être identiques" par Elie Gerstner et Emmanuel Piekut
Publié le : 25/02/2019 25 février févr. 02 2019Dans les médiasDeux avocats du cabinet Flichy Grangé reviennent sur les impacts pratiques d’...
-
Mardi 19 mars 2019 | Les poursuites en droit pénal du travail : maîtriser le risque et les enjeux pour l’entreprise
Publié le : 21/02/2019 21 février févr. 02 2019Les petits-déjeunersLe renforcement des pouvoirs de l’inspection du travail, l’allongement des dé...