OD FLASH | Nullity of the fixed annual working time agreement: no automatic prejudice

Cass. Soc., March 11, 2025, no. 24-10.452 and no. 23-19.669

Any irregularity in fixed annual working time agreement, whether at the time of conclusion or execution, may render it null and void or ineffective, which implies the retroactive application of the collective work hours and, where applicable, the risk of overtime pay for the employee concerned.

In two rulings dated March 11, 2025, published in the Bulletin, the French Labour Court clarified a number of points concerning compensation for irregularities in a fixed annual working time agreement: an employee claiming compensation for irregularities in a fixed-term agreement must demonstrate that he or she has suffered prejudice in order to be compensated.

In the first case (no. 24-10.452), an employee took advantage of the tribunal action he introduced to contest his dismissal to argue that the fixed-annual working time agreement applied to him should be rendered ineffective, since the employer had failed to comply with the provisions relating to monitoring his workload.

Indeed, under article L. 3121-60 of the French Labor Code, “the employer regularly ensures that the employee’s workload is reasonable and allows for a good distribution of work over time“.

However, for both the Court of Appeal and the French Supreme Court, simply noting that this provision has been disregarded is not enough to entitle the employee to compensation. The employee must also demonstrate that he has suffered prejudice as a result.

In the second case (no. 23-19.669), the employee had her fixed-rate agreement declared null and void, as the collective agreement on which it was based did not guarantee that her workload was reasonable.

However, here again, the Cour de cassation is clear: “a breach of this kind does not in itself give rise to a right to compensation, and it is up to the employee to demonstrate the distinct prejudice resulting therefrom“.

These rulings confirm the principle that any loss must be justified and must be proven in order to result in the award of compensation (Cass. Soc., April 13, 2016, no. 14-28.293).