Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Fr.2 FRANCE

Fr.2 FRANCE Modification of conditions of work - refusal of employee to work - consequences HEADNOTES Facts Following some (apparently minor) changes in his conditions of work, the employee refused to continue to work and took the view that, in so doing, he was accepting the breach of his contract by the employer. A court of first instance held that he was himself responsible for the breach of the contract and hence was not entitled to any indemnity. The present proceedings were an appeal from that decision. Decision The appeal was rejected, with somewhat different reasoning. JUDGMENT The employee contests the view of the lower court that he was responsible for the breach of the contract of employment, and hence was not entitled to any indemnity, whereas- as affirmed by the employee- he had informed the employer that he found himself obliged to take note of the breach of his contract by reason of the modifications made therein. There was thus not a resignation, because the employee places the responsibility for the breach on the employer. In the absence of an unequivocal resignation, the refusal of an employee to continue to perform an employment contract which has not been been http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labour Law Reports Online Brill

Fr.2 FRANCE

Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/fr-2-france-kCn368Anx3

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6028
DOI
10.1163/221160296X00218
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Modification of conditions of work - refusal of employee to work - consequences HEADNOTES Facts Following some (apparently minor) changes in his conditions of work, the employee refused to continue to work and took the view that, in so doing, he was accepting the breach of his contract by the employer. A court of first instance held that he was himself responsible for the breach of the contract and hence was not entitled to any indemnity. The present proceedings were an appeal from that decision. Decision The appeal was rejected, with somewhat different reasoning. JUDGMENT The employee contests the view of the lower court that he was responsible for the breach of the contract of employment, and hence was not entitled to any indemnity, whereas- as affirmed by the employee- he had informed the employer that he found himself obliged to take note of the breach of his contract by reason of the modifications made therein. There was thus not a resignation, because the employee places the responsibility for the breach on the employer. In the absence of an unequivocal resignation, the refusal of an employee to continue to perform an employment contract which has not been been

Journal

International Labour Law Reports Online – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.