Working up to 12 days in a row is possible (Court of Cassation)

After how many working days does an employee legally have a day off? The social chamber of the Court of Cassation has just rendered an explosive decision. It was originally seized by an employer in conflict with an employee.

In this case, the employee is a sales manager. He was recruited by a company that imports and distributes beauty products. 10 months later, he terminated his contract and accused his employer of having made mistakes.

He accuses him of not having respected the right to weekly rest and of having made him work more than reason at trade shows. Once 11 days in a row and another time 12 days in a row. The worker appeals to the industrial tribunal to have his departure reclassified as dismissal without real and serious cause. One thing led to another and the dispute went all the way to the Supreme Court.

What does the law say about this? The Labor Code specifies: it is “prohibited to have an employee work more than 6 days per week” and a minimum weekly rest period of 35 hours is required. At first glance, one might say that the matter is over and that the employer was indeed at fault. Yet, the Court of Cassation ruled in favor of the latter.

To justify its decision, it relies on similar decisions rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and takes the opportunity to clarify the famous sentence of the Labor Code. If the law prohibits an employee from working more than 6 days per week, this week must be considered as a calendar week, which begins on Monday morning and ends on Sunday evening.

So, if an employee has a day off on a Monday, he can work the following 6 days. Then do 6 other days the following calendar week, before a day of rest on Sunday. In total, he will have worked 12 consecutive days, but never more than 6 days in a row per calendar week and always with a weekly day of rest.

This decision sets a precedent and potentially concerns all workers. But this possibility must remain exceptional, believes lawyer Déborah Fallik, who recalls that employers have an obligation to ensure the safety and protect the physical and mental health of their employees.

At the CFE-CGC, the executives’ union, we judge the ruling to be “out of character, in a context of increasing work accidents and expectations in terms of quality of life at work”. Companies that seize this opportunity will have difficulty recruiting and retaining, warns Jean-François Foucard, the national delegate in charge of employment.