The current page is not translated to the selected language.
Download article in original language : FR0203107FFR.DOC
Over 2001 and 2002, a number of industrial tribunal rulings have highlighted the 'abusive' use of temporary agency work in the French automobile industry. The use of agency workers is widespread in this sector, and tribunals have found that in some cases this has exceeded the bounds of the law.
The French Labour Code (Code du Travail) lays down restrictions on the use of temporary agency work, whereby a temporary employment agency places workers at the disposal of user companies (TN9901201S). Temporary agency work contracts may not usually last for longer then 18 months, and may only be used in specific circumstances - replacement of absent employees, temporary increases in activity and inherently temporary work. Temporary agency work may not be used for jobs linked to the regular and ongoing business activities of companies. Recent years have seen considerable numbers of disputes and court cases over the alleged 'abusive' use of temporary agency work contracts in the automobile manufacturing sector.
In January 2002, Peugeot was ordered to pay damages to eight temporary agency workers employed at its Aulnay-sous-Bois (Seine-Saint-Denis) plant. The plant's management had terminated these workers' employment, despite the fact that they had been working there for over 18 months, which is the maximum period for a temporary agency work assignment allowed under the Labour Code. Peugeot has appealed against the ruling, which reclassified the workers in question as being on open-ended employment contracts and found the company guilty of unlawful dismissal. Six further temporary agency workers at the same plant have since lodged similar complaints demanding that their contracts be rectroactively reclassified as open-ended. A ruling on their case is due to be handed down on 29 May 2002.
In July 2001, an industrial tribunal awarded to nine temporary agency workers at Citroën's plant in Rennes payment for days when they were temporarily laid off by the company, along with damages and interest. Of the hundreds of temporary agency workers in the same situation at Rennes, a dozen have said they are also prepared to take their cases to the industrial tribunal.
SOVAB, a Renault subsidiary which manufactures commercial vehicles at Briey (Meurthe-et-Moselle), is also currently involved in legal proceedings over the alleged abusive use of temporary agency work contracts. In the period between 1997 and 2000, over one-third of the company's workforce was made up of temporary agency workers.
In the automobile industry, the use of temporary agency workers has become a standard human resource management practice, as shown by the large numbers of workers hired by manufacturers on this basis. At the Peugeot Aulnay plant, there are 1,300 temporary agency workers, compared with 3,500 permanent employees. PSA and Renault employ a total of 12,000 and 4,500 temporary agency workers respectively (approximately 10% of the workforce). The automobile industry has the highest number of temporary agency workers as a percentage of the total workforce of any sector. The use of temporary agency workers seems to go well beyond the exceptional increase in activity criterion laid down in the Labour Code.
According to automobile manufacturers, 'just-in-time' imperatives and 'lean' production require them to be able to adapt their labour force instantly to fluctuations in business requirements. Against this backdrop, temporary agency work is now used by companies as a flexibility tool, which has thus apparently led to cases of non-compliance with the legislation prohibiting the use of this type of contract for 'jobs linked to a company's regular on-going activities'. Various practices are reportedly well entrenched, notably: repeated temporary agency work assignments, interspersed with fixed-term contracts; the slight alteration of job descriptions to get around the 18-month limit on a temporary agency work contract; the use of temporary agency work contracts as a means of selecting workers; and sudden non-renewal of temporary agency work contracts.
For critics, these practices appear to reflect an overall policy by automobile manufacturers, whose senior management negotiate with major temporary agencies the financial arrangements for the bulk hiring of temporary agency workers, who are perceived as a 'commodity' falling more under purchasing policy rather than human resource management. These bulk negotiations are geared to cutting the cost of temporary agency contracts for manufacturers which, in addition to regular wages, are required to pay a supplement to cover a 'precarious employment bonus' for the workers, as well as the fee charged by the temporary employment agency.
The General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT), which is playing a leading role in the various ongoing legal proceedings before the industrial tribunals, is challenging the 'normalisation' and 'generalisation' of the use of temporary agency work. CGT is satisfied with both the rulings against the automobile manufacturers for exceeding the statutory maximum contract period, and the compensation awarded to the temporary agency workers involved where agencies fail to comply with the provisions of employment contracts. However, it also believes that a lasting solution can be developed only if underlying issues are addressed.
The six new grievances brought by temporary agency workers at the Peugeot Aulnay plant (see above) seek to obtain an industrial tribunal ruling against the use of temporary agency workers in jobs connected to the regular business activity of the company, by demonstrating that the Aulnay plant employs a very high and stable number of temporary agency workers regardless of the variations in the company's business activity. In light of the number of workers involved, the stakes are high and the automobile manufacturers fear the fall-out of a negative ruling in May 2002.
The practices that are currently being challenged have existed for some time, but very few temporary agency workers have filed legal suits, allegedly for fear of being permanently 'blacklisted' from the local labour pool. Temporary agency work is, by its very nature, unstable and as such, the workers involved cannot afford to alienate automobile manufacturers and their subcontractors, which are often the sole local employers and sources of employment. However, this general fear now - for several reasons - seems to have waned.
First, high-profile cases, such as the reclassification of 244 temporary agency work contracts at Hutchinson in 1999, or the victory of the Citroën Rennes workers in 2001 and the Aulnay plant employees in early 2002, have served as incentives. The abusive use of temporary agency employment is now taken more into account by industrial tribunals, which do not hesitate to rule against companies which overstep the mark. Where the courts turn temporary agency work contracts into open-ended employment, this increases the cost of dismissing these workers and destroys any labour flexibility benefits gained by employers through this type of employment.
However, the increase in the number of disputes is also due to the economic downturn. The number of temporary agency workers employed in the automobile industry has fallen over the past year or so. Many of these workers, who had worked on a renewed-contract basis for several years have now joined the ranks of the unemployed and have no other option than to take their case to the industrial tribunal. Surveys have indicated that workers - who for the most part are ultimately seeking stable employment, see temporary agency jobs as a transitional measure and criticise the hardship and lower status involved - are less afraid of taking action when faced with unemployment.
The acknowledgement by industrial tribunals of abuses in temporary agency work is vital on both a collective and individual level. This recognition reflects a growing need for the individual protection of temporary agency workers whose services are no longer required, even though they have worked on successive temporary agency contracts, sometimes for several years, in the same company without being taken on as permanent member of staff. However, this recognition is also a more across-the-board, collective condemnation of the abusive use of temporary agency workers by automobile manufacturers.
The forthcoming rulings will indicate whether this recognition is merely a challenge to temporary agency work practices - ie a lack of genuine monitoring, successive contract renewal, unjustified dismissals and imposed arrangements - or whether, more generally, the industrial tribunals intend to monitor temporary agency work more strictly, with a view to enforcing the ban on using temporary agency workers to fill jobs linked to the regular and ongoing business activities of companies. (Mouna Viprey, IRES)