OD FLASH | Conseil d’Etat 4e-1e ch. October, 15 2024 n° 488496 : As part of a Social Plan (PSE), the prevention of psychosocial risks does not require a specific opinion from the Works Council (CSE) with a dedicated vote

In a ruling dated October 15, 2024, the French Council of State, sitting in a joint session, clarified the procedure for informing and consulting the Works Council (CSE): it is not necessary for the latter to issue a specific opinion on the issue of psychosocial risk (PSR) prevention. Consequently, the employer is not required to organize a committee vote on this matter.

In this case, the company Aciam was placed under judicial recovery proceedings, which ultimately led to liquidation with a complete cessation of activity. Within this context, a Social Plan (PSE) providing formore than 2,000 layoffs was implemented and subsequently approved by the DREETS. The CGT union criticized the inadequacy of the measures included in this PSE, arguing in particular that the evaluation of psychosocial risks (PSR) had not been properly conducted. The union therefore petitioned the administrative courts to annul the decision approving the PSE. Its claims were dismissed by the administrative tribunal and the appellate court, both of which found that the PSE complied with legal requirements regarding employee support measures and the search for available resources to implement these measures.

The matter was brought before the Council of State by the union, which argued that the liquidator’s obligations in terms of risk prevention had not been sufficiently examined. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the appellate court should have ensured that a specific opinion had been adopted by the CSE following a vote dedicated to the prevention of PSR.

The question posed to the Council of State was whether the prevention of psychosocial risks faced by employees in the context of collective layoffs required a specific opinion from the CSE, following a vote explicitly dedicated to this issue.

The Council of State ruled in the negative and upheld the decision of the administrative appellate court. The high court first emphasized that when the administration reviews the content of the unilateral document submitted for approval, it must verify, even for companies in judicial liquidation, that the employer complies with its obligations in terms of risk prevention to ensure the safety and protect the physical and mental health of workers. This includes verifying both the proper information and consultation of employee representative bodies and the measures that the employer or liquidator is required to take under their safety obligations.

However, the Council of State clarified that no legal or regulatory provision, nor any principle, requires that the information or consultation of employee representative bodies on the issue of preventing risks to employees’ physical and mental health in the context of a collective redundancy project must result in the adoption of a specific opinion formally preceded by a vote.

Therefore, the union’s claim that the appellate court erred in law by not ensuring that this issue had been addressed through the adoption of a specific opinion preceded by a vote cannot be considered valid.

In conclusion, compliance with the provisions related to the prevention of psychosocial risks (PSR) is carried out as part of a comprehensive review of the regularity of the information and consultation process, pursuant to Article L.1233-30 of the French Labor Code. This article specifies that the elements submitted to the Works Council (CSE) must include, among other things, “the consequences of the proposed layoffs on health, safety, or working conditions.”