Dismissal for serious misconduct: the Court of Cassation specifies the conditions of compensation

Ubuesque? A bus receiving driver dismissed for serious misconduct requested in particular the payment of conventional dismissal compensation in the name of the principle of equal treatment.

Treatment difference

Indeed, the national collective agreement for urban public passenger transport networks of 1986 provides for severance pay for managerial employees dismissed for serious misconduct. This, however, is excluded in the event of dismissal for gross misconduct or when the executive meets the conditions to benefit from immediate retirement.

The employee argued that this difference in treatment was “not justified by objective and relevant reasons, to the extent that no specificity of the executives' situation” justifies it. The court of appeal found it “well-founded” in its request. The urban community which employed him appealed to the Court of Cassation.

“Presumed justified”

Differences in treatment between professional categories, via conventions or collective agreements negotiated and signed by representative unions, “are presumed justified” and it is up to the person who contests them to provide proof that they are unrelated to any consideration of a professional nature, recalls the Court of Cassation.

However, the fact that an executive is not entitled to severance pay when he is dismissed for gross misconduct or when he can benefit from immediate retirement, proves that the existing difference in treatment is “not unrelated to any consideration of a professional nature”, she ruled (Court of Cassation, September 16, 2026, social chamber, n°24-21.567).