Is the government reducing the rights of people whose health or physical integrity has been impaired because of their employment? The controversy has been mounting since the Social Security financing bill (PLFSS) for 2024 was presented on September 27 to the Council of Ministers. In its article 39, the text contains measures to “modernize compensation for work accidents or occupational illnesses”. A misleading title in the eyes of two established organizations: the National Association for the Defense of Asbestos Victims (Andeva) and the National Federation of Work Injured and Disabled People (Fnath). They denounce a ” arm of honor “ and an ” treason “ towards employees.
At the origin of the controversy, there is a reversal of case law on the occasion of two judgments rendered on January 20 by the Court of Cassation. The disputes referred to a system of reparations, built from 1898 on the basis of a compromise between unions and employers. When an individual is recognized by the “Secu” as being the victim of an illness or accident linked to their profession, they receive a pension from the work accidents-occupational illnesses branch (AT-MP ) of the general regime. This same individual also has the possibility of receiving new compensation – in addition to the “AT-MP pension” – if his employer is convicted of “inexcusable misconduct”.
It is this mechanism that the Court of Cassation turned upside down. Thanks to its two decisions of January 20, victims are entitled to additional compensation, for their physical and moral suffering, without having to prove that this specific damage is not covered – whereas previously, they had to demonstrate it. .
“Strong increase in expenses” for employers
But the affair had a twist. In the national agreement of May 15 on the AT-MP branch which they signed unanimously, the unions and employers asked the government to take action in the face of this case law which could – according to them – call into question the compromise “historical” of 1898 and the ” nature “ of the AT-MP pension.
Article 39 of the PLFSS is presented by the government as a response to this request from the social partners – even if FO and the CGT say, today, that they do not recognize themselves in this provision. For the executive, it is also, as indicated in the impact study of the bill, “to improve compensation” victims of AT-MP, “while limiting the economic risk for businesses”, these being called upon as part of a procedure for inexcusable misconduct. If no action was taken, it would result in “a sharp increase in expenses” for employers, but also for the AT-MP branch and the Asbestos Victims Compensation Fund.
You have 9.21% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.