OD FLASH | The employer can request the suspension of the telephone line of a former employee dismissed for serious misconduct.

Cass. Soc., February 5, 2025, no. 22-23.730

It is possible to refer a case to the labour court in summary proceedings, an emergency procedure designed to obtain a rapid provisional decision, as long as:

• The measures requested are not seriously contested (C. trav., art. R. 1455-5)

• Or in order to prevent imminent damage or stop a manifestly unlawful disturbance (C. trav., art. R. 1455-6).

In the case in point, the employer decided to bring the matter before the Labour Court in summary proceedings, believing that his claim was not seriously disputed.

The employee was recruited by a company as a sales representative and was dismissed for gross misconduct. His employer requested that he return all company documents and equipment that had been made available to him in the course of his work, including his professional cell phone.

The employer noted that the employee had his professional cell phone line transferred to his personal name.

Therefore, he therefore referred to the labour court, in its summary proceedings, to obtain the return of the professional telephone line belonging to the company.

The employee argued that the summary proceedings panel was not competent to hear the case and that the employer’s claim should be heard on the merits, as it was seriously disputed.

More precisely, the employee considered:

• he had contracted the telephone line in his own name;
• And in any event, the judge in summary proceedings was not competent to rule on a dispute concerning the possession of a property.

The Court of Appeal granted the employer’s request for restitution, holding that, since the disputed telephone line corresponded to the telephone number made available to the employee during the performance of the employment contract, this telephone line was of a professional nature. 

The French Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal’s reasoning: the simple fact that the disputed telephone line was the same as the telephone number made available to the employee during the performance of the employment contract was sufficient for the judges to determine that the line was in fact a professional line. Since this finding was not seriously disputed, the summary proceedings panel was empowered to order the return of the line to the employer.

In the event of an employee refusing to return company equipment following dismissal, the summary proceedings procedure can be an effective solution, provided that the professional nature of the equipment is not seriously challenged.