The Court of appeal ruled in a case of displacement of production (from a site in Rungis to plants in the Paris neighbourhood) that workers could not refer to the regional metal sector collective agreement to refuse displacement. The agreement provided (in article 3) the right to be notified in advance of every change of the employment relationship at the workplace and, if not accepted by the worker, had to be seen as a breach by the employer of this relationship. According to the Court the articles of the collective agreement only mean that in case of non-acceptance by the worker, the employer is free to start a formal procedure for dismissal. Besides the Court notes that the employer gave enough time to the workers to adapt to the new situation.
French: http://www.miroirsocial.com/actualite/12525/interpretation-d-une-convention ...
The Court interpretation (in French): https://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG///Note_explicative_Mme_Depommier.pdf
For more information, please contact the editor Jan Cremers, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies (AIAS) cbn-aias@uva.nl or the communications officer at the ETUI, Mariya Nikolova mnikolova@etui.org. For previous issues of the Collective bargaining newsletter please visit http://www.etui.org/E-Newsletters/Collective-bargaining-newsletter. You may find further information on the ETUI at www.etui.org, and on the AIAS at www.uva-aias.net.