Unions protest against plan to cut funding of prud’hommes tribunals
Published: 24 July 2006
The employees and employers elected to sit on the current 271 industrial tribunals (Conseils de Prud’hommes [1]) (*FR0301107F* [2]) hear, on average, up to 210,000 cases per year (*FR0403107T* [3]).[1] http://www.justice.gouv.fr/justorg/csph.htm[2] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/results-of-industrial-tribunal-elections[3] www.eurofound.europa.eu/ef/observatories/eurwork/articles/thematic-feature-individual-labouremployment-disputes-and-the-courts-7
In late April 2006, members of the prud’hommes industrial tribunals – the labour court of first instance – who were elected by employees, called for a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Justice buildings in Paris. The protest was against a draft government decree that proposes to cut funding to these labour tribunals and aimed to raise members’ concerns about the future of the tribunals.
Unions’ proposals
The employees and employers elected to sit on the current 271 industrial tribunals (Conseils de Prud’hommes) (FR0301107F) hear, on average, up to 210,000 cases per year (FR0403107T).
On 26 June 2003, as a result of dissatisfaction with the conditions under which tribunal members must exercise their mandates, five French unions with representative status put forward a joint charter of proposals aimed at improving industrial tribunal processes.
The unions involved were: the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT), the French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement – confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC), the French Christian Workers’ Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens, CFTC), the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT) and the General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail – Force ouvrière, CGT-FO).
The unions’ proposals concerned three main areas:
the general operating principles of the Conseils de Prud’hommes, reasserting the importance of conciliation hearings and taking steps to counteract unjustifiable delays for hearings;
compensatory pay for actual time spent carrying out tribunal duties, including time spent doing administrative tasks in between hearings;
pay levels, including rates for sessions on tribunals, travel expenses, etc.
Government response
On 17 February 2005, a delegation from the five unions met with the then Minister of Justice, Dominique Perben, to express their concerns about the government’s plans to cut funding for the industrial tribunals. Indeed, Mr Perben had commissioned a report addressing the issue of payment of prud’hommes tribunal members in 2004; the so-called Desclaux report (not available online) was finally released in October 2005.
4 January 2006, the current Minister of Justice, Pascal Clément, emphasised the importance of these tribunals as he referred to the members of the prud’hommes tribunals in his inaugural speech (in French) of the judiciary year. He stated that those members of the tribunals ‘carry out a vital task’ for the French economy and ‘must be publicly thanked for their commitment to and participation in the justice system’s public service’.
A final decree, based primarily on the Desclaux report, is expected to appear soon. The existing draft allegedly provides that ‘the number of paid hours that members of the prud’hommes can spend writing up rulings and minutes cannot exceed’ the following set limits:
| Maximum number of hours allowed to write up: | |
| Minutes | 0.5 hour |
| Order | 1 hour |
| Ruling | 3 hours |
Moreover, in a memo dating from early March 2006, and brought to the attention of the Conseils de Prud’hommes in late March, the Ministry of Justice placed industrial tribunal judges under the control of the local prosecutor in the state justice system.
Reactions and comments
According to the unions, the draft decree further reduces the already inadequate funding of the Conseils de Prud’hommes. For example, writing up a ruling in Paris takes at least five hours on average. Union members who sit on prud’hommes tribunals are, therefore, anxious that the government’s plan will penalise the parties of disputes, and that tribunal members will not be paid at a level commensurate with the time they spend on the cases. Moreover, the unions consider that the draft decree defines the ‘elected and independent tribunal members as stereotypical court officials, in complete ignorance of the type and complexity of the cases they hear’.
The unions feel that the March 2006 memo jeopardises their independence and has been an obstacle to making rulings likely to challenge the New Recruitment Contract (Contrat nouvelle embauche, CNE) (FR0507103F).
For all these reasons, the unions argue that both the future and sustainability of industrial tribunals comprised of elected employees and employers face a serious risk. Yet, they maintain that this institution, which celebrates its bicentenary in 2006, must be retained, as:
for many employees, taking a case to the prud’hommes is the last resort for them to exercise their rights and receive compensation;
in the French legal system, the distinctive characteristic of the Conseil de Prud’hommes is that it operates with elected and independent members, to perform duties set out under the Labour Code.
On 26 April 2006, the union representative members of the prud’hommes, the CFDT, CFE-CGC, CFTC, CGT, CGT-FO, the Independent Union – Solidarity, Unity, Democracy (Union syndicale – Solidaires, Unitaires, Démocratiques, SUD), and the National Federation of Independent Unions (Union nationale des syndicats autonomes, UNSA), called for a demonstration in front of the Ministry of Justice buildings in Paris in order to express their disapproval of the government’s draft decree.
After the appointment with the ministry, the trade unions remain anxious. Furthermore, none of the employer organisations have so far issued a statement concerning the draft decree.
In July 2006, the decree had not yet been published.
Benoît Robin, Institute for Economic and Social Research (IRES)
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2006), Unions protest against plan to cut funding of prud’hommes tribunals, article.
