Mandate Agreement For A Shop And Subordination
LexInter | October 18, 2007 | 0 Comments

Mandate Agreement For A Shop And Subordination



Versailles Court of Appeal

Public hearing of January 30, 2007

Appeal no .:
Published by the Documentation and Studies Department of the Cour de cassation

COURT OF APPEAL OF VERSAILLES Code nac: 80C 6th chamber DECREE NO CONTRADICTORY OF 24 OCTOBER 2006 RG No 06/01817 CASE: HIS BOUYGUES CLUBS NETWORK TELECOM (RCBT) in the person of its legal representative C / Robert X … Frédéric Y … Daniel Z … Jacques A … Eric B … Franck C … Jean Christophe D … Decision referred to the court: On the dispute filed against a judgment of the VERSAILLES industrial tribunal dated April 25, 2006 No Chamber: Section:

Framing No RG: 04/381 “in tie-breaker formation” Enforceable expeditions Shipments Copies delivered on: to: FRENCH REPUBLIC IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE THE TWENTY FOUR OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND SIX, The VERSAILLES Court of Appeal, delivered the judgment next in the case between: HIS BOUYGUES TELECOM CLUBS NETWORK (RCBT) in the person of its legal representative 16-18 Avenue de l’Europe 78148 VELIZY CEDEX Not appearing – Represented by Me Hubert FLICHY and Me Laurent GAMET, of SCP FLICHY lawyers at the PARIS bar, cloakroom: P 461 and SCP LISSARAGUE DUPUIS BOCCON GIBOD Attorney at Court (Absent) APPELLANT [****************] E … Robert X. .. 237 Avenue de Fabron Entrance C 06200 NICE Not appearing – Represented by Me GUEDJ Marie-José,lawyer at the ÉVRY bar, cloakroom: E … Frédéric Y … 1 rue des Vignerons 63670 LA ROCHE BLANCHE E … Daniel

Z … 6, rue Pergaud 25000 BESANOEON E … Jacques A … 56, rue Pierre Loti Charron 17230 MARANS E … Eric B … 34 rue Gimelli 83200 TOULON E … Franck C … 38 rue du Commandant Bourgeois 49130 LES PONTS DE CE E … Jean Christophe D … F … du Saillant 19240 ALLASSAC Appearances – Assisted by Me RAVASSARD Cyril, lawyer at the bar of ÉVRY, cloakroom: RESPONDENTS [**** ************] Composition of the court: The case was debated on September 12, 2006, in open court, before the court composed of:

calf procedure code.

They argue that the commercial companies formed to meet the expectations of their principal were in reality apparent legal screens set up in order to mask the nature of the existing working relationships between the parties; the “managers” thus worked on behalf of the company RCBT within an organized service, giving them orders and directives, controlling their execution and sanctioning them in the event of breaches; The SARLs had no autonomy in the operation of the business, provided the applicants do not invoke the fictitiousness or even the nullity of the companies. They contested the assimilation of their legal situation to that described in the case studied in the legal consultation for the debates concerning a non-exclusive rental management contract (C.Cass 16.11.05 ELF ANTARGAZ I LAROCHE). They also contested the comparison with the situation of the franchisee who owns his business, the holder of the commercial lease, who pays a percentage on the turnover, which sets his prices.

The only decisive criterion is that of the independence of the agent who must retain initiative in the acts concluded on his behalf and in

The only decisive criterion is that of the independence of the agent who must retain initiative in the acts concluded on his behalf and in the accomplishment of his mission; otherwise, there is no mandate. The status of employee results from the existence of a relationship of subordination; a mandate exists when the agent defines his hours and place of work, does not receive directives, chooses his own working methods. The criterion of the existence of a relationship of subordination makes it possible to distinguish between mandate and E …

François BALLOUHEY, president,

Mrs Béatrice BIONDI, Advisor,

E … Hubert LIFFRAN, adviser, who deliberated, Registrar, during the debates:

E … Alexandre G … **************** FACTS AND PROCEDURE,

Ruling on the dispute regularly formed by the company Réseau Club Bouygues Télécom, known as the RCBT company formerly the boutique network distribution company (DRB), of a judgment of the industrial tribunal of Versailles, in the course of a tie-breaker dated 25 April 2006 , in a dispute between him and

E … Robert X … E … Frédéric Y … E … Daniel Z … E … Jacques A … E … Eric B … E … Franck C … E … Jean Christophe D …, and who, at the request of Mon-sieur Robert X … E … Frédéric Y … E … Daniel Z … E. .. Jacques A … E … Eric

B … E … Franck VACHET Mr. Jean Christophe D … in recognition that their contractual relationship with the company RCBT formerly the company DRB constitutes an employment contract:

Decided to have jurisdiction and referred the parties on the merits of the dispute to the hearing on December 19, 2006;

The company AGORAPHONE managed by Robert X … concluded a mandate contract on 02.11.98 until 28.02.01 with the company RCBT SA; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04. The TELTEC company managed by Frédéric DI COSTANZO entered into a mandate contract from 30.10.98 until 28.02.01 with the company RCBT SA; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04. The company MOBILES LIBERTE managed by E … Daniel Z … entered into a mandate contract on 03.11.98

employment contract ;

They ask for the reclassification of their contract into an employment contract and do not request the benefit of article L 781-1 of the labor code;

For a fuller account of the means and claims of the parties the court, in accordance with article 455 of the new code of civil procedure, refers to the conclusions filed and supported at the hearing as well as to the oral claims as recalled below. -above ;


The relationship of subordination of a natural person to an employer is characterized by the performance of work under the authority of an employer who has the power to give orders and directives, to control them. execution and sanction the breaches of his subordinate; that the work within an organized service can constitute an index of the bond of subordination when the employer unilaterally determines the conditions of execution of the work; that the existence of a working relationship does not depend either on the will expressed by the parties or on the denomination they have given to their agreement, but on the de facto conditions in which the workers’ activity is carried out; the sole will of the parties is powerless to remove a worker from the social status which necessarily results from the performance of his work, whatever the legal qualification given to the agreement concluded between them; this proof must result not from the sole analysis of the contracts concluded between the company RCBT and the seven people in question but from the research whether in fact the company RCBT and before it the company DRB had the power to give orders and directives as to the performance of the work itself and to sanction any breaches thereof;

It is important to find out whether the company RCBT has entered into a contract with until 28.02.01 with the company RCBT SA for a shop located in DIJON; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04; a second contract was concluded from 04.11.00 to 28.02.01 for a shop located in CHALON SUR SAONE and renewed under the same conditions. The company CEJICOM managed by Jacques A … concluded a mandate contract on 01.26.00 until 02.28.01 with the company RCBT SA; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04. The TELDIS company managed by Jacques A … a

concluded a mandate contract on 23.07.99 until 28.02.01 with the company RCBT SA; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04. The company FRA.COM.SAT managed by Franck C … concluded a mandate contract on 01.11.98 until 28.02.01 with the company RCBT SA; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04. The company PHOENIX TELECOM managed by Eric B … concluded a mandate contract on 02.11.98 until 28.02.01 with the company RCBT SA; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04. The company JCDI managed by E … Jean Christophe D … concluded a mandate contract on 28.10.99 until 28.02.01 with the company RCBT SA for a shop located in PERIGUEUX; this contract was renewed from 01.03.01 to 31.03.04; a second contract was concluded from 28.11.00 to 28. 02.01 for a store located in BRIVE LA GAILLARDE and renewed under the same conditions. The first contract did not continue from 02.16.04; the second was terminated as a result of unpaid debts on 17.08.05. Robert X …, Eric

B …, Franck C …, Jean Christophe D …, Frédéric Y …, Jacques A …, and Daniel Z … seized on 30.03.04 the industrial tribunal of VERSAILLES in requalification of the relationship existing with the company RCBT to be considered as their employer in view of the existence of a relationship of subordination in application of the provisions of article L 121-1 C.Trav. during the tie-off hearing on 02/28/06, SA RESEAU CLUBS BOUYGUES TELECOM (RCBT) formerly known as the company

independent companies or if it wanted to attach the work of a natural person, this requires examining the nature of the relationship pursued with the companies including E … Robert X … E … Frédéric Y … E … Daniel Z … E … Jacques A … E … Eric B … E … Franck C … E … Jean Christophe D … , are managers;

If each of the defenders to the contradiction has signed with the company RCBT then the company DRB a management contract under cover of a company created by them, the company DRB required that the manager undertakes to personally and effectively manage the company and that each of the various defenders is and remains a partner with a ban on changing manager even because of death; RCBT made the assignment or transfer of all or part of the rights and obligations arising from the contract subject to its agreement, it decided on its own whether a manager could be entrusted with a second store, while this manager could not on his own initiative get

this opening, Mr. A … is one of those; the RCBT company cannot draw proof of the independence of this manager; the company RCBT required by contract with its companies that the manager produce a medical certificate attesting to his immobilization in the event of closure of the shop and reminded the managers that if they did not do what it requested the contract would be terminated and “you will lose your job”; In its relations with companies, the company RCBT generally addressed itself to managers under the name “managers” without identifying either each company or each manager but simply the functions of store management, behavior informing the search for

These findings establish that the company RCBT mainly sought the execution of the management contract mandated by the

DISTRIBUTION RESEAU BOUTIQUES (DRB) raised in limine litis an objection of incompetence in favor of the Commercial Court of Versailles.

The company RCBT by written conclusions filed and referred to at the hearing, supported orally, concludes:

On the merits of the contradiction and request to declare the labor tribunal incompetent for the benefit of the Versailles commercial court, alternatively Order before saying right an expertise;

It states that the company BOUYGUES TELECOM has been marketing digital radiotelephony products and services to the general public and businesses since 1994 through a distribution network entrusted to its subsidiary, the company DRB, which has become RCBT. Mandate contracts in accordance with the provisions of article 1984 C.Civ. were concluded with commercial companies under the terms of which it was planned that: the RCBT company would provide managers with “turnkey” shops located in privileged locations; these managers are custodians of the stocks (terminals and accessories) supplied and financed by their agent in charge of ensuring their sale; RCBT supports their training, particularly with regard to network strategy, management procedures (invoicing on behalf of RCBT), marketing …; the company pays commissions on sales and bonuses on targets.

It opposes the fact that it never contracted directly with the applicants having legal relations only with the commercial companies agents; it was unable to obtain communication of the accounting documents of the said companies. The contracts concluded mention a clause conferring jurisdiction for the benefit of the manager himself as a natural person and not in his capacity as manager of a company; Without there being any need to find out whether these companies were null or fictitious, it is for the court to determine whether the activity of the seven defenders was carried out in a relationship of subordination or on the contrary with the autonomy that befits any entrepreneur. working in a company or in a personal capacity;

In the absence of a written and apparent employment contract, it belongs to Mr. Robert X … E … Frédéric Y … E … Daniel Z … E … Jacques A …

E … Eric B … E … Franck C … E … Jean Christophe D …, to prove this link of subordination, it is wrong that the first judges imposed this proof to the company RCBT;

The documents discussed and the pleas and arguments developed and produced by the parties result in the following elements and findings:

On proof by the defenders of the existence of a relationship of subordination;

On the impact of the mode of remuneration of the managers, it should be noted that no party claims to exercise this mandate on a voluntary basis, therefore the mode of remuneration, by direct payment of the company DRB or of the company RCBT or by distribution by the operating companies of the commissions paid, even though the managers determined by the deliberations of the general meetings of their company the level of their remuneration, is in

relationship with the level of commissions paid by the mandating companies; these were contractually left to the unilateral initiative of the RCBT or DRB company which, depending on the products placed on the market, the promotional campaigns decided by it and the qualitative premiums defined by them fixed the commission rates and even their amount in the Commercial Court of Versailles. The RCBT Company invokes the absence of fictitiousness and nullity of the agent companies which would be the necessary prerequisite for the disappearance of the alleged screen of the legal person and for the existence of a link of subordination directly connecting each of the applicants to be recognized. it.

The defendant denies having a power of sanction comparable to that of an employer because of the intuitu personae character, which is one of the characteristics of the mandate contract and allows competitors to be excluded; the distribution contracts also stipulate clauses concerning: non-competition, continuing training,

Obligations arising from the contract of deposit, objectives, early termination for fault, return of stocks and means

made available at the end of the contract. It notes that the mandate contracts ended at the initially agreed term; furthermore, the sanction for non-performance of the contract by breach is not specific to the employment contract. E … Robert X … E … Frédéric Y … E … Daniel Z … E … Jacques A … E … Eric B … E … Franck C … E … Jean Christophe D …, by written submissions filed and referred to at the hearing, supported orally, conclude:

Rejection of the dispute and request to tell the competent industrial tribunal,

Request an evocation of the merits of the case,

and the Condemnation of the company RCBT to pay them:

reminder of salary, overtime, severance and dismissal indemnity without real and serious cause as well as their affiliation to the social security scheme for employees;

They each ask 4500 ç in application of article 700 of the new since they also decided the volume of delivery of the products in each store always according to its criteria of commercial policy as it is expressed in a note for the operation “suitcase” for which the DRB company fixes the time and the number of products for a determined period at each store. This statement can be deduced from the fact that several correspondences between managers and the company RCBT report late delivery or lack of available stocks reducing the store’s ability to generate sales as a source of commission, while these same managers do not have any compensation or indemnification action against the company RCBT or the company DRB.

incompatible with an employment contract since these sums to be distributed as wages come exclusively from commissions paid in execution of the agreed work;

There is therefore work for remuneration;

This remuneration of the manager and possibly of his staff is analyzed and presented during the continuing training courses for managers. It emerges from these instructions and analyzes during these internships that the store’s net profit is the difference between the commissions paid by the DRB company and the whole made up of operating costs, payroll and taxes. On these various elements, the managers have a reduced margin of action since they are hardly free from the operating costs which result for the most part from the obligation to follow the commercial policy of the company DRB, the tools of IT management for which the company is strongly pushing for adoption or even imposes the

managing companies before being reimbursed by the mandating company, the stock rules, all the means of exploitation which are determined by the DRB or in accordance with its requirements, the total absence of freedom of price, the advertising or presentation costs determined according to the requirements of the DRB which negotiates and imposes advertising on the directory or the T-shirts and clothes that sellers must wear, it has no control over taxes, as to the payroll the company DRB strongly encourages the definition of the number of workers by systematically analyzing the ratios between the available working time, the working time spent with each client which is evaluated and measured, also indicating that on the occasion ofa commercial operation over three months the managers must reinforce the staff of the points of sale, and the other necessities of sale of the products, so that the company DRB, imperatively induces the number of working hours useful to each store, and therefore a preponderant element in the determination of the payroll The net result of the store is then assimilated to an incentive to the result of this store that belongs to the managerand therefore a preponderant element in the determination of the payroll The net result of the store is then assimilated to an incentive to the result of this store that belongs to the managerand therefore a preponderant element in the determination of the payroll The net result of the store is then assimilated to an incentive to the result of this store that belongs to the manager

and manager to distribute. This is similar to a delegation by the employer, the DRB, to an intermediate level, the managers, of the power to redistribute an incentive in a profit center;

Finally, it emerges from certain correspondence that the company DRB even forgets the concept of company and commission to directly evoke the concept of remuneration of managers as in a correspondence on the occasion of the operation “6 hours pro discoveries”, the company expresses thus the true legal nature of the commissions;

It is advisable to endeavor to find in the facts whether, through the notes and correspondence given by the company DRB to

“managers”, through the exchanges of emails, the visits and inquiries carried out by the company in the stores entrusted to the respondents, the method of determining the commissions retroceded to the managers as well as through the definitions of commercial policies by the company DRB , this left defenders an autonomy of management and direction of their company and their staff, or on the contrary gave them orders and directives as to the performance of the work itself and sanctioned the shortcomings;

On the existence of orders and directives given by the company DRB or the company RCBT;

There is no need to dwell on the clauses of the contract and the instructions resulting from the observation and respect of police or consumer protection rules that the company RCBT, owner of the premises and products is required to do. respect; these clauses and instructions are not indicative of a relationship of subordination and have no influence on the qualification of a mandate contract;

The company DRB offers managers with a strong incentive to follow training courses for the personnel they have under their orders: in itself this device is not characteristic of order and instruction of the company DRB to its managers even if it infers a method of personnel management and hosts a large part of managers’ initiative;

On the contrary, the courier is characteristic of order and instruction.

by which the DRB company or the RCBT company encourages managers to open their stores on Christmas Eve, weekends and public holidays when the contract does not expressly impose this requirement. directives to all managers to open stores and outlets on Ascension Thursday, July 14, and May 7 and 8, an instruction being drafted in particularly imperative terms with the order to “make arrangements to open the shops “; Likewise, on the occasion of inventories, the DRB company imposes on managers a way to precede in order to reduce the store’s closing time, which would reduce sales time: this instruction is a negation of the manager’s freedom of management. not’

If the contract recognizes the DRB company to determine the products for sale, it is by general memo sent by email that it unilaterally imposes over time and according to its own commercial strategy to its managers the levels of satisfaction that will be taken into account for the criteria

qualitative determination of commissions and distributes congratulations or denounces poor performance; the company DRB gives orders when it announces to the managers that they “must make clear space in the windows” to let the “merchandiser” designated by it set up the Christmas decoration that it alone has determined and imposes in each shop; for a Christmas campaign, the DRB company does not hesitate to require certain managers of mu-ni stores in large windows to make additional gift boxes themselves, and for others to “invest in individual lighting to strengthen the type lighting set up by the merchandiser delegated by it;

While the training distributed by the DRB company may respond to a legitimate concern to allow store managers to adapt to changes in products, the offer made expresses an obligation and not a proposal such as demonstrates a note in which managers are told that “it is essential that you

participate in this training “or even that by which the company” imperatively requests to participate in the sessions “, the company even requires managers to go to these trainings or conventions” without closing a shop “; In the conduct of sales relations between the salespeople of each store and the customers, the company DRB imposes the methods and products to be favored, leaving no initiative to the managers. and such customer relationship process in order to systematically offer such supplement or additional product This is clearly expressed in the letter to managers of December 1, 1999;

These orders are also expressed without qualification in instructions entitled “transfer order to be carried out on the same day”.

These orders go against the managerial power of management and the deposit of this power as it emerges from the correspondence for the implementation of the TNT-Chronopost system in which the company DRB affirms that “all the points of sale are managed by the DRB company according to the same process “; the marketing of products is an opportunity for directives that must be followed scrupulously, note of February 24, 1999, without the manager being able to free himself or herself from them.

move away. This note insists on the fact that the shops must not follow any personal interest which is the opposite of an autonomous company even within the framework of a precise mandate;

On the occasion of the introduction of new methods or new services, the company DRB submits to the managers amendments to the management contract original mandate which allow the company DRB to adapt the legal framework to the choices of its policy, these amendments are submitted in an imperative form without discussion by the manager who must sign them as invited by a letter of February 12, 2002 which leaves no room for discussion, or on the occasion of the renewal of the management contract. e-mail of March 18, 2004 which imperatively requires the return of the signed contract before a short delay. This illustrates how under the guise of formal consent to an amendment or a contract, managers accept new charges or rules that they do not.

The DRB company controls the execution of its orders and instructions in a precise systematic and constant manner without letting the

the smallest deviation or delay both in bookkeeping and in the management and presentation of goods and in the management of personnel. Its control of its instructions in all areas of store operation is proven, even beyond contractual requirements:

Thus, in a 2000 note on inventories, the company DRB analyzes the stock inventories of all the stores as well as the comments made by the managers, it proceeds to the qualitative classification of the responses and consequently of the managers and distributes the comments praising the quality of certain and denouncing the insufficient explanations or the explanations not admitted by her as convincing, she concludes by indicating that by indulgence she will not draw all the consequences opened to her by the stipulations of the contract but ends her remarks by recalling that the next time it will use the termination option set out in the mandate management contract. By proceeding in this way, by distributing this study to all stores,

In 2004 by a collective e-mail, the company DRB asked various managers for explanations of the poor execution of instructions relating to defective products, in the same way in 2003 it demanded from some of the defenders justifications for the discrepancies. inventories, however carried out contradictorily. In 2001, a note was sent to a manager without even referring to the name of his company to ask him to account for a billing defect newly introduced unilaterally by the company DRB, instructing him to “come and explain to my company DRB bureau as soon as possible”. In 1999, having noted abuses in the application of marketing rules, the company DRB reminds ” absence of consideration as to the managerial and organizational autonomy of managers, i.e. the negation of their status as a company manager, without the exercise of this control being proportionate to the only requirements of the contract management mandate. The control is also carried out using the mystery shopper process:

agent of the RCBT company or of the DRB company sent in a most often incognito way, he exercises control over all the elements of the sales process from his entry into the store until the end of a commercial operation. According to the salesperson training grid provided by the principal, it measures, evaluates, analyzes and times the salesperson’s behavior in these various sales obligations. This results in an evaluation report which will have consequences in terms of the so-called qualitative bonus on the commissions, commissions presented on this occasion for the remuneration of the manager. This process, by its systematization, its impact on remuneration, the substitution of

The DRB company and then the RCBT company have the power to sanction breaches;

It is thus that certain times it does not use the power of sanction which it recognizes and recalls, as during the results can

satisfactory from the first inventory campaign in 2000 where it indicated that it was lenient, as a warning, that it would use the option to terminate the management contract in the future. Its disciplinary power is expressed by the systematic reminder on the occasion of each breach of the faculty widely open by the management contract mandate for its termination. The DRB company uses this facility as the employer of the right to dismiss. The company recalls this option regardless of the seriousness of the breach noted. This right of termination, which has the effect of causing the manager to lose his or her job, constitutes a strong lever for constraint and acceptance of a situation defined and imposed unilaterally outside of the initial provisions of the contract, as was noted on the occasion of the acceptance of an amendment to this contract; this is how the court noted in various individual or collective letters the following reminders and decisions: in 2003, a note came out on the mention “attention, attention from now on we will apply the contract to the letter”. In a letter to one of the defendants, after stigmatizing the breaches a-chève on the mention “attention, attention from now on we will apply the contract to the letter”. In a letter to one of the defendants, after stigmatizing the breaches a-chève on the mention “attention, attention from now on we will apply the contract to the letter”. In a letter to one of the defendants, after stigmatizing the breaches

contractors the company DRB ends the letter with the mention “failing this we will terminate your contract in accordance with article 18-1”, while the reproach consisted in the failure to open a shop on the day when this manager learned of the death of his little brother. In 2004, to a manager who was slow to justify civil liability insurance, the DRB company issued him a warning in the form of a reminder of the faculty of termination by laifier of the civil liability insurance, the DRB company issued him a warning in the form of reminder of the right of termination by the company. This disciplinary power is

It also emerges from all the elements submitted for discussion that the managers are integrated into a service organized unilaterally by the DRB company or the RCBT company in which they have no possibility of determining the terms, this organized system can be summed up under the name of the Network, the Company Club, the company being the Bouygues club network and in no case each of the companies

of the various managers. This network is expressed through the vocabulary used in correspondence, sessions, conventions, training seminars, imperative directives for the homogeneous management of all the stores under the exclusive management of the company DRB or the company RCBT. . In this club or network, only the DRB company then the RCBT company defines the rules, rules implemented from the recruitment and the initial training of future managers who precede the moment when they are entrusted with a shop after constitution of the company of which they are concerned. are the manager;

If only one or a few of the above observations were not repeated or systematic, the court should consider that they are acts insufficient to characterize this bond of subordination, but the repetition, the accumulation, the systematization and the general behavior of the company DRB then of the company RCBT leaves no room for the effective exercise of the management contract mandate in a minimum independence necessary for the reality of the exercise of this contract by an independent commercial company as claimed by the RCBT company; the permanent interference of the company DRB then of the company RCBT in the keeping of the accounts, the management, the exploitation, the presentation of the products, the

E … Robert X … E … Frédéric Y … E … Daniel Z … E … Jacques A … E … Eric B … E … Franck C … E … Jean Christophe D …, are linked to the company RC-BT formerly the company DRBar an employment contract which justifies the competence of the industrial tribunal;

The contradiction formed by the company RCBT is ill-founded, the clause conferring jurisdiction on the Commercial Court of Versailles is unenforceable against the seven employees who are E … Robert X … E … Frédéric DICOSTAN- ZO E … Daniel Z … E … Jacques A … E … Eric H …- RAT E … Franck C … E … Jean Christophe D …, the prudent council men of Versailles is competent.

In order to find a solution to the case within a reasonable time in application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the court which is the appellate court of the court thus declared competent intends to evoke the case on the merits at a future hearing.

Equity requires that the RCBT company be charged a sum of 2,500 ç for each: E … Robert X … E … Frédéric I …- TANZO E … Daniel Z .. . E … Jacques A … E … Eric B … E … Franck C … E … Jean Christophe D …, in application of article 700 of the new Code of civil proceedings for the benefit of the dispute defendants under the dispute proceedings.



STATUS in a public hearing, by contradictory judgment and as a last resort,

REJECTS contradicts it,

SAYS the competent Versailles industrial tribunal,

REFERRING TO THE SUBSTANCE of the case refers the parties to the hearing of:

Tuesday January 30, 2007 at 11:00 am Room 3 – Door H – Right ground floor

TO DECIDE on the parties’ requests,

STATES that the notification of this judgment constitutes a summons of the parties,

CONDEMNS the RCBT company to pay each of:

E … Robert X …

E … Frédéric Y …

E … Daniel Z …

E … Jacques


E … Eric B …

E … Franck C …

E … Jean Christophe D …

the sum of 2,500 ç (TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EURO) in application of article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure for costs before the court,

CONDEMNS the RCBT company at the cost of the contradiction.

Judgment delivered by E … François BALLOUHEY, President, and signed by E … François BALLOUHEY, President, and by E … Alexandre G …, Registrar present during the delivery



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Reload Image