Court of Cassation, Labor Chamber, October 21st, 2026, N° 25-13.708
A company entered into mandatory negotiations with the representative unions regarding compensation, including actual wages, working hours, and the sharing of value added within the company. During these negotiations, the employer had put forward wage proposals: increases in wages and in the amount of certain bonuses. However, at a subsequent negotiation meeting, the employer withdrew these proposals.
At the conclusion of the negotiations, which did not result in an agreement, the employer drafted a statement of disagreement, which, pursuant to Article L. 2242-5 of the Labor Code, must set forth the latest status of the parties’ respective proposals and the measures the employer intends to implement unilaterally. These minutes did not include the pay increases initially proposed during the negotiations. The labor unions also drafted their own minutes of disagreement.
The unions filed a lawsuit in the civil court seeking enforcement, subject to a penalty payment, of the pay increases that had been proposed, as well as compensation for the damages they claimed to have suffered due to the employer’s failure to honor a unilateral commitment and its breach of the obligation to negotiate in good faith.
The Rouen Court of Appeals rejected the unions’ claims, holding that these proposals did not constitute a unilateral commitment and that the employer’s withdrawal of them did not violate the obligation of good faith, particularly in light of the company’s deteriorating economic situation.
In a ruling dated October 21st, 2026, the Court of Cassation upheld this analysis: the proposals made by the employer during the mandatory wage negotiation meetings – which were subsequently withdrawn during those same negotiations and not included as unilateral measures in the minutes of disagreement drawn up by the employer – cannot be considered a unilateral commitment.
Furthermore, the Court of Cassation noted that the unions had not accepted the proposals before they were withdrawn and that the withdrawal was motivated by events that occurred during the negotiations, which weakened the company’s economic situation. It thus upheld the reasoning of the Court of Appeals: the withdrawal was not abusive, and the employer had not breached its duty of good faith.
This ruling can be interpreted in light of a decision dated April 15th, 2026 (No. 24-15.653 – https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000054026298), in which the Court of Cassation reiterated that only the drafting of a minutes of disagreement brings mandatory negotiations to a close. Thus, a proposal from the employer may still be accepted by a labor union before negotiations are closed, even if the response deadline set by the employer has expired.
These two decisions remind employers of the importance of managing the timeline and maintaining a clear record of negotiations: proposals may be withdrawn in accordance with the duty of good faith.
Furthermore, simply setting an expiration date for the offer is not sufficient to conclude negotiations as long as a minutes of disagreement have not been drawn up. It is therefore essential to continuously document the employer’s successive positions as well as the potential conclusion of negotiations.
