RATP has just suffered a setback in an atypical labor dispute. The magistrates of the Paris Court of Appeal ordered her to reinstate an employee she had dismissed on the grounds that he would constitute a potential danger for her colleagues and users. Rendered on May 6, the decision is part of a series of disputes where the public company is accused of having hijacked the rules, in the name of an expeditious application of the precautionary principle.
The dispute concerns Adil, a 41-year-old man whose first name has been changed in order to preserve his anonymity. Recruited in August 2007 as a bus driver, six and a half years later he joined the RATP Network Protection and Security Group (GPSR). In August 2018, the Paris Police Prefecture withdraws his authorization to carry a weapon. No longer able to be a vigil, he asks to become a driver again.
The management then decides to ask the National Service for Administrative Security Investigations (Sneas), attached to the Ministry of the Interior, to check whether his employee is likely to be dangerous. Promulgated a few months after the attacks, in Paris, against Charlie Hebdo, the Hyper Cacher de la porte de Vincennes and the Bataclan, the law of March 22, 2016 offers, in fact, the ability for transport companies to request such investigations on candidates for employment and on employees already in post, who wish to change assignments or whose attitude is worrying. These so-called “screening” operations are only permitted for certain sensitive jobs.
“Misguided” procedure
At the end of October 2018, the Sneas delivers an “opinion”, not motivated and transmitted only to the employer, in which he considers that Adil’s behavior is not ” not compatible “ with the desired activity, without providing any explanation. A month and a half later, the RATP fired him, taking advantage of the assessments made by the police.
A long battle ensued before several jurisdictions. First of all, the administrative court of Paris, seized by Adil, invalidates the repeal of the license to carry a weapon as well as the opinion of the Sneas. The former RATP agent then turns to the industrial tribunal to denounce the breach of the employment contract. Engaged in summary proceedings, his request is rejected, but the forty-something contests the decision. With success, since the Court of Appeal has therefore just upheld its case, by reversing “The prescription” labor tribunal.
You have 31.49% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.