What happens if, after signing a promise of employment for agreement, a candidate claims that the terms of the employment contract submitted to him/her differ from the promise of employment?
This is the question that the judges of the Court of Appeal had to answer in a very recent judgment of 2 June 2022.
a. The talks
In the pre-contractual relationship, talks are exchanges between the employer and a person interested in a job.
These often oral discussions may also be the subject of written exchanges during a pre-contractual period. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a simple formality without consequences. This is the time when the employer's duty to inform the candidate (future duties, future remuneration, etc.) and the candidate's duty to inform the employer (diplomas, professional experience, etc.) are met.
During this period, as a matter of principle, the initiative, conduct and termination of pre-contractual negotiations are free.
However, the freedom to break off talks is not absolute and has certain limits. The breach must not be abusive, wrongful or done with intent to harm and must also meet the requirements of good faith. Consequently, the victim of a fault committed during the period preceding the conclusion of a contract is entitled to seek compensation for the damage he or she considers to have suffered on the basis of tort liability. This may be the case, for example, where the breakdown of the talks is based on a discriminatory cause.
Talks, offer of employment, promise of employment: concepts not to be confused
During the pre-contractual period the future employer often wants to end the talks so that the employment contract can be concluded. In this context, the employer may send the candidate an offer of employment, or even a promise of employment. The field of litigation calls on the courts to distinguish between these two relatively ambiguous notions.
i) L’offre d’embauche constitue un acte unilatéral par lequel l’employeur manifeste sa volonté de recruter le candidat retenu. Il s’agit donc d’une proposition de contrat ferme, puisqu’elle exprime la volonté de son auteur d’être tenu en cas d’acceptation par le salarié, dans un délai déterminé.
This must mention :
Lorsque cette offre d’embauche est rédigée avec soin, le contrat de travail proprement dit ne devrait être formé que lorsque le salarié aura donné son accord en acceptant l’offre. Il sera également permis à l’employeur de se rétracter tant que l’accord du salarié n’aura pas été recueilli.
ii) La promesse d’embauche constitue un acte unilatéral par lequel l’employeur s’engage à établir un contrat de travail avec le candidat si celui-ci l’accepte. A contrario de l’offre d’embauche, la promesse d’embauche est donc un acte par lequel l’employeur promet un engagement à un candidat, sans possibilité pour l’employeur de se rétracter.
Elle doit être considérée comme un « avant-contrat de travail » permettant au salarié de lever « un droit d’option » qui parachèvera définitivement la formation du contrat projeté. L’employeur s’engage à établir un contrat de travail avec le candidat si celui-ci l’accepte. En d’autres termes, la promesse étant un contrat préparatoire, le consentement de l’employeur a déjà été donné de manière irrévocable. Il en résulte donc que la levée de l’option par le salarié emporte de plein droit conclusion du contrat de travail.
The scope of this act is therefore much more binding than that of the offer of employment. The promise to hire no longer leaves room for doubt for the company, the employer testifies to a firm commitment so that the contract will be concluded on the sole basis of the beneficiary's declaration of intent.
It follows from the (rare) Luxembourg case law that " La promesse unilatérale est […] la convention par laquelle le promettant, en l’espèce l’employeur, s’engage envers le bénéficiaire et si, celui-ci le lui demande dans un certain délai, à conclure un contrat de travail dont les conditions sont dès à présent suffisamment déterminées. » (Court of Appeal, 29 October 1998, no. 19279 and 19340 of the roll).
« For there to be a unilateral promise to enter into a contract which is definitively binding on the person from whom it emanates, il faut que la manifestation de volonté de celui qui s’engage témoigne d’un engagement ferme qui le lie en tout état de cause de sorte que le contrat sera conclu sur la seule déclaration de volonté du bénéficiaire de la promesse. […] Pour qu’il y ait promesse avec formation du contrat dès son acceptation par le bénéficiaire, il faut en outre que les éléments essentiels du contrat à passer soient dès à présent déterminés avec une précision suffisante. » (Cour d’appel, 12 mai 2011, n°35496 du rôle).
Pour qu’elle soit qualifiée de « promesse », il est donc nécessaire que l’ensemble des éléments essentiels du contrat de travail soient repris afin de garantir que les pourparlers sont bien terminés. Il s’agit :
Dès lors, la fermeté de la promesse suffira à caractériser le contrat de travail en ce qu’elle manifeste une intention réelle de conclure le contrat à des conditions définies.
iii) Offre de contrat ou promesse d’embauche, le contenu objectif reste matériellement le même. Seule la volonté exprimée par la rédaction les distingue donc. Un mot de trop, une formule mal rédigée, et l’acte peut ne pas correspondre à l’intention recherchée. C’est ainsi qu’une offre d’embauche peut parfaitement être analysée comme étant une promesse (ou l’inverse) et engager l’employeur à conclure un contrat de travail quand bien même il n’en a plus l’intention. La distinction entre offre et promesse d’embauche revêt dès lors une importance fondamentale dans la mesure où une promesse d’embauche peut emporter de graves conséquences, notamment en cas de rétractation de l’employeur.
In any case, these acts, when accepted by the person recruited, create a firm obligation for the employer to conclude an employment contract within a certain period. Since withdrawal after acceptance by the employee has the effect of unfair dismissal, it may entitle the employee to damages for the harm caused (resignation from the former post, refusal of another offer, etc.).
This is the question that the judges of the Court of Appeal had to answer in a very recent judgment of 2 June 2022.
After having signed a promise of employment, a candidate reproached her future employer for having modified the contractual terms at the time of the presentation of the final employment contract in that the amount of the annual remuneration and the bonus as well as the type of company car retained in the employment contract did not correspond to the terms of the promise of employment. According to the candidate, this modification of the terms of the promise of employment would constitute a modification of the employment contract insofar as it affected essential elements of the latter. The candidate then refused to sign the said contract, considering that the employer had broken the promise of employment. She then summoned the company to appear before the labour courts in order to have this breach of the promise of employment declared an unfair dismissal and to claim damages.
According to the candidate, by accepting the promise of employment, the employment contract would have been concluded according to the terms of the promise. In fact, if the employer had modified the terms of the promise in its essential elements, it would have modified the employment contract, so that it was essential to obtain the candidate's agreement. In the absence of agreement, the contractual relationship would have remained unchanged and the employer would have terminated the employment contract thus formed by the promise to hire.
However, neither the Labour Court nor the Court of Appeal followed the employee's reasoning.
Selon les juridictions du travail, il appartenait à la candidate d’établir la réalité des manquements qu’elle reprochait à l’employeur et sur lesquels elle fondait son action.
En effet, en matière de rupture du contrat de travail aux torts de l’employeur, la charge de la preuve ne pèse pas sur ce dernier de la même manière que lors d’un licenciement, mais sur le salarié. Il lui appartient de démontrer les manquements de l’employeur ainsi reprochés.
However, according to the Labour Court and the Court of Appeal, if the candidate could not prove the breach of her employment contract and, more specifically, the breach of the promise of employment by not presenting her with an employment contract in accordance with this promise, she had not established her dismissal.
The candidate was not in possession of the employment contract proposed by the company, which did not comply with the terms of the promise of employment, as she had torn it up and thrown it away shortly after the interview. She was also unable to produce any exchanges that would justify a breach of her alleged employment contract. Therefore, the candidate had not established that she had been dismissed by the company, as her arguments were based on her simple statements, which were contested by the company.
In these circumstances, and in the absence of evidence justifying the alleged modification of the terms of the promise of employment and the alleged dismissal complained of by the candidate, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the Labour Court and declared the appeal unfounded.
