Therefore it was acquired as the second act would solve the problem

When was the site of the 35 hours and as soon as the preparation of the Aubry I Act, it became clear that, except for paid employees at the minimum wage, the legislature did not intend to impose a reduction of working time (RTT) accompanied by a maintenance of the wages. Therefore, not number of experts in law then, many les difficultés qui allaient surgir si les entreprises décidaient de réduire le salaire en proportion de la RTT ou même de ne le réduire the difficulties that would arise if companies decide to reduce the wage in proportion to the RTT or even reduce it does that, now the salary to 80 or 90 of the former.

As a first step, the Government, based on the experience of the Robien Act had swept the objection: it was not at the time of refusal phenomenon.

He was then pointed out that according to the jurisprudence Framatome/Majorette (become obsolete since the Act of January 2005 social cohesion), which had, it was not the number of employees who refused but the number of those who were likely to do so. As soon as the reduction of working time (RTT) would result in a same low salary reduction and would be at least ten people, companies should build a social plan if Parliament was not. We can imagine the disastrous psychological effect of this situation without penalty.

Therefore, it was acquired as the second act would solve the problem. It did in two stages: first, by stating that "the only decrease in the number of hours stipulated in the contract of employment, in application of a reduction in the duration of the work agreement, is not an amendment to the contract of employment."

Then, stating that "when one or more employees refuse an amendment to the contract of employment, in application of a reduction in the duration of the working agreement", their dismissal would not be based on an economic basis and would be "individual".

Contract amendment

The first point was clear: If the employer negotiated an agreement lowering working hours from 39 to 35 hours by now the salary, employees could not if support on which was written in their original contract to dismiss: the law is not made for creating unnecessarily unemployed. The second point should, in principle, not ask nor: when the RTT resulted in a decrease in monthly wages, that this provision was the result of a collective agreement negotiated with one or more unions, the employee could refuse but his dismissal would be not economical. Note at this stage that the Act thus set the procedure but not the validity of the grounds for dismissal prejudge. However, it may suggest that comply with the law is a serious reason, and it is certainly real and imaginary.

This principle is General in scope and applies therefore that there is an agreement of RTT, regardless that he was found under the empire of Aubry II, Aubry I or Robien laws, the Court of cassation has just say so (Cass.) Soc., March 15, 2006, no. 03 - 48 027).

Remained all the Act left deliberately: the RTT non-negotiated, with wage reduction, the "few unhappy" passing, without the consent of the trade unions, to 35 hours paid 35. Employees could refuse, case law has determined that any alteration of the salary, even modest, is a modification of the contract of employment. That then decide on the qualification of dismissal

It is this question that answers another decision of the Court (Cass.) Soc., March 15, 2006, n 05 - 42 946, Sopafom): If the employee has refused a unilateral decision of salary reduction related to the changeover to 35 hours, termination of employment that follows is economic. This means that the employer is required by several obligations: search for reclassification, rehire priority... This means also that if multiple he should, if he had at least 50 employees, consult the Committee of business and offer a social plan when at least 10 employees were concerned.

But that person will mistake: the Sopafom judgment defines the category in which lies the dismissal, it is economic. Rest on the employer to prove that the method chosen was essential for the safeguarding of competitiveness, otherwise these redundancies will be abusive.