Under pressure from several associations and unions, the government is reviewing its copy. On Wednesday October 18, the Minister of Labor, Olivier Dussopt, sent a letter to the social partners to inform them that he is proposing the ” withdrawal “ a measure reforming compensation for work accidents and occupational diseases. Included in article 39 of the Social Security financing bill (PLFSS) for 2024, this will give rise to “to further discussions” between employer and employee organizations, adds Mr. Dussopt in his letter. The minister’s decision puts an end to criticism that the executive was about to offer a gift to businesses, while reducing the sums owed to victims of physical harm caused by their professional activity.
This is a small twist in a matter that began at the beginning of the year. On January 20, the Court of Cassation reversed its case law in two judgments concerning employees who died of lung cancer after inhaling asbestos dust in their workplace. At the heart of these disputes is the reparations system, put in place 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 a pathology or an accident linked to their profession, they receive a pension from the work accidents-professional illnesses branch (AT-MP ) of the general regime. This same individual may, in addition, receive new compensation – in the form of an increase in his “annuity” – if his employer is convicted of ” inexcusable mistake “.
The decisions of the Court of Cassation improve this protective mechanism. From now on, 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 this. A development, therefore made possible by the rulings of January 20 and welcomed by two organizations known for their long-standing commitment to these issues: the National Association for the Defense of Victims of Asbestos and Other Occupational Diseases (Andeva) and the National Federation workers injured at work and the disabled (Fnath).
A compromise called into question
But this issue is experiencing a rebound, with the national agreement of May 15 on the AT-MP branch, which the unions and employers signed unanimously. These have a different position from that of the Fnath and the Andeva. The social partners believe that the new case law calls into question the compromise “historical” of 1898, which seeks to ensure rapid compensation and limit litigation. They therefore ask the government to correct by law the effects of the judgments of January 20.
You have 44.87% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.