OD FLASH | Occasional business trip may be imposed on an employee, and refusal to comply can justify dismissal for gross misconduct

Supreme Court, January 29, 2025, No. 23-19.263

In this case, an employee was hired under a permanent work contract as a carpenter-sider. This contract included a clause stipulating that the employee was required to accept any work-related travel. At the end of the initial project, the employee was assigned to other sites but refused this new assignment. Following this refusal, the employee was dismissed for gross misconduct.

The employee filed a claim with the labor court challenging the dismissal, arguing that the refusal to travel for the new assignment was legitimate.

In a decision dated June 2, 2022 (20/00988), the Grenoble Court of Appeal upheld this argument, ruling that the dismissal lacked real and serious cause. The court ordered the employer to pay various compensations, including reimbursement of unemployment benefits paid to the employee.

The employer filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that:

• The clause in the contract requiring travel remained valid even after the initial project had ended.
• Given the specific nature of the employee’s role, the employee was obligated to accept travel for the company’s benefit, even if the clause had lost its mandatory effect.

The Supreme Court clarified that the clause in the employment contract, which required the employee to accept any travel within the scope of their duties, does not lose its binding effect after the completion of the initial project for which the employee was hired, as the contract continued thereafter.

The Court also stated that occasional travel can be imposed on an employee when it is part of the usual scope of their activity, justified by the company’s interests, and when the employee is informed in advance within a reasonable time frame about the expected duration of the mission.

Thus, the Supreme Court, referencing Articles L. 1221-1 of the French Labor Code and 1134 of the French Civil Code, overturned the decision of the Grenoble Court of Appeal, ruling that the employee’s dismissal was justified. The Court considered that the employee should have complied with the travel requirements within the scope of their work, and that the dismissal for gross misconduct was well-founded.

To demonstrate the habitual nature of occasional travel required by the job, it is advisable to include a clause in the initial employment contract explicitly stating that the employee may be required to travel occasionally as part of their duties.