In 2001, the CIC concluded an agreement recognizing the staff representatives the right to use e-mail for Union communications related to the social situation of the company with its trade unions.
One of the trade unionists who have used this right to distribute to staff an email of protest against the arrest of José Bové, branch notifies it a warning, disciplinary action which he asked the Council of labor to declare a mistrial.
In support of his application, he developed three arguments. First, he recalled that, under the single reserve of defamatory, the content of the communications Union, whether of leaflets or posters, is freely determined by the trade unions and that e-mail, to be a modern support, does to obey not least to the same rules as those applicable to conventional media. It therefore challenges the validity of the restriction contained in the collective agreement, which reserves the use of e-mail for information connected with the company. Then, it moves in the field of freedom of expression enjoyed by any employee. According to article l. 120 - 2 of the Code of the work, the company may limit this freedom a grounds justified by the nature of the task at hand and in a manner proportionate to the aim pursued. By disseminating this protest to ten employees, is outside working hours, it considers have made use of the more reasonable of liberty and did not see what legitimate has been muzzled.
Third string to his bow, discrimination: our trade unionist finds that business tolerate the transmission of e-mails humorous, humanitarian or even pornographic. How is it that the employer, just for the letter of solidarity, make shows severity
A beautiful consistency
This triple argument will convince the Court of appeal of Paris or the Court of cassation. It stands under the terms of business agreement which it enshrines the validity. As the use of messaging was reserved to the Union communications relating to the company, that exceeded the boundaries defined by the social partners had committed misconduct may be sanctioned (Cass. Soc., January 22, 2008, no. 06 - 40 514).
By taking position, the Court of cassation demonstrates a beautiful consistency in his refusal to see the Union expression divert to the policy. This is in fact not the first time that it is before the delicate question of the border between the social and the political. While first-level courts are many width of spirit in matter, the Court of cassation, if it does not ignores the nesting of the political and social, is what trade unions do not the mission assigned the Labour Code away (v. work., art.) L. 411-1), namely, the exclusive, "the study and defence of human and material and moral interests both collective that individual persons covered by their status."
While the TGI de Grenoble allowed the display, in 1973, of a section of the "working life" advocating the Joint Programme of the left, on the grounds that the newspaper in question was of Union origin (TGI Grenoble,. 29 Apr 1974), the Court of cassation, at the same time, found that a leaflet advising a choice political to some parties in an electoral consultationwas not included in the skills of a Trade Union (Cass. Soc.,. 6 nov 1974).
She repeated in 1980 by approving the sanction taken from a steward who had distributed a leaflet to guide the choice of the voters for a party for the legislative elections (Cass. Crim. 25 nov. 1980), which did prevent not the TGI of Poitiers, a year later, to admit the lawfulness of a display to vote for the candidate of the left in the second round of the presidential election (TGI Poitiers)(May 8, 1981). May 3, 2002, git of Nanterre has validated a leaflet distributed between the two rounds of the presidential election, embodying and
analyzing the economic and social one program to
Despite the frond of the EBU, the Court of cassation, it sees it, remains firm on its positions.