Please note
Precarious contracts: Labour inspectorate launches a large-scale inspection campaign from June 2025
In response to the increasing use of precarious contracts in businesses, the labour inspectorate has decided to act starting in June 2025, by launching a nationwide inspection campaign to tackle abuses related to fixed-term contracts, temporary work, and apprenticeships.
This operation follows a series of consultations with social partners and business stakeholders at both local and national levels.
The labour inspectorate has stated that inspectors will specifically target unlawful uses of such contracts, particularly when they are used to permanently fill roles linked to the company's regular activity, or when they are concluded under prohibited circumstances (e.g. replacing a striking employee, for hazardous roles, or following a redundancy for economic reasons).
Inspectors will be tasked with explaining the regulations to employers and, where necessary, demanding compliance. In cases of ongoing violations, sanctions may be imposed.
New Regulation
Decree No. 2025-482 of 27 May 2025 on "protection of workers against risks related to heat exposure" strengthens protection for employees during extreme heat events.
From 1 July 2025, employers must assess the risks associated with workers' exposure to periods of intense heat, whether indoors or outdoors.
If the risk assessment identifies any threat to workers' health or safety, the employer must implement appropriate measures or actions. These must be included either in the single risk assessment document (for companies with fewer than 50 employees) or within the annual occupational risk prevention and working conditions improvement plan (for companies with over 50 employees).
Additionally, employers must implement preventative measures aimed at reducing the risks related to heat exposure, particularly those outlined in Article R. 4463-3 of the Labour Code.
Court Decision
The Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation rejects the Priority Question of Constitutionality (QPC) aimed at challenging Article 37 of Law No. 2024-364 of 22 April 2024 and the rulings of 13 September 2023 on paid leave accrual during periods of sick leave.
In this case, the employee's contract had been suspended due to a recurrence of a work-related accident between 13 March 2017 and 23 January 2023.
The employee sought back pay for holiday leave from 13 March 2018 to 23 January 2023, based on Article L. 3141-5, 5° of the Labour Code as amended by Article 37 of Law No. 2024-364 of 22 April 2024, which now states that: "Periods during which the employment contract is suspended due to a work-related accident or occupational illness" count for paid leave entitlement.
The Court of Cassation recalled that:
- Article 37 of Law No. 2024-364 of 22 April 2024, which amends Article L. 3141-5, 5° of the Labour Code, is not retroactive.
- Before the new law came into effect, Article L. 3141-5, 5° of the Labour Code only considered uninterrupted periods of up to one year of contract suspension due to work-related accidents or occupational illnesses as qualifying for paid leave.
Therefore, in this case, the amended provisions of Article L. 3141-5, 5° did not apply to the period from 13 March 2018 to 23 January 2023 due to the absence of retroactive effect.
Finally, the Court also dismissed the QPC on the grounds that the rulings of 13 September 2023 did not relate to the legislative provision in Article 37 of the 2024 law.
(Court of Cassation – Social Chamber, 28 May 2025, No. 25-40.006)
The Judge has Ruled
The lack of precision in the employee's evidence supporting a claim for unpaid overtime does not exempt the employer from providing the court with information justifying the hours actually worked.
When an employee claims unpaid overtime, the burden of proof is shared. The employee must provide the court with sufficiently detailed evidence of the unpaid hours allegedly worked, enabling the employer – who is responsible for monitoring working time – to respond effectively.
Therefore, the employer cannot simply argue that the employee's evidence is vague or rely on the existence of a working time tracking system or an internal rule stating that only management may authorise overtime.
In any event, the employer must prove the actual hours worked by the employee.
(Court of Cassation – Social Chamber, 27 May 2025, No. 24-16.119)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
