Arbitration Clause and French Law: When the French Employment Tribunal Prevails Over Arbitration

Imagine: you live in Borgo, Haute-Corse, and have worked for an English company for 26 years, without ever setting foot in London. Your contract was signed in an office in Lille, but a small clause states that any dispute must be settled by an arbitrator at the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Then one day, you are dismissed. Where do you take your case? To London? To Paris? Or to the employment tribunal (conseil de prud'hommes) in Bastia, near your home?

This is precisely the question the Court of Cassation decided in 1975 in a landmark case. A Belgian citizen, Mr Montfort, residing in Lille, had worked for 26 years for the English company Sterling-Foundry. Dismissed in 1974, he brought the case before the Lille employment tribunal. The employer objected: "Your contract contains an arbitration clause (a clause requiring arbitration) submitting disputes to the International Chamber of Commerce. The employment tribunal has no jurisdiction."

The Court of Cassation ruled in favour of Mr Montfort. It held that the protective provisions of the French Labour Code are mandatory (i.e., they apply to everyone, even if the parties have agreed otherwise), and that the arbitration clause was void. Result: the employee can bring proceedings before the French employment tribunal. This decision is a powerful weapon for any worker in France, even under a contract with a foreign company.

The facts: a story that happens every day

Mr Montfort, a Belgian citizen, lived in Lille, France. In 1948, he signed a contract with Sterling-Foundry, a company incorporated under English law (a company created under English laws), whose registered office was in London. The contract appointed him as the company's exclusive agent for France. For 26 years, he worked on French territory, without ever working in England.

In 1969, an addendum (an addition to the contract) was signed in Lille, stipulating that any dispute would be submitted to arbitration by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), whose seat is in Paris. In January 1974, Sterling-Foundry dismissed Mr Montfort by letter. In that letter, the employer expressly referred to the French Labour Code and the law of 13 July 1973 (relating to termination of employment contracts).

Mr Montfort then brought the case before the Lille employment tribunal to challenge his dismissal. The English company raised the employment tribunal's lack of jurisdiction, relying on the arbitration clause: according to it, only an arbitrator appointed by the ICC could settle the dispute. The employment tribunal declared itself competent, and the company appealed. The Court of Appeal confirmed the employment tribunal's jurisdiction. The company then appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The twist? The Court of Cassation dismissed the company's appeal, confirming that the French employment tribunal had jurisdiction. It held that, in the circumstances of the case (contract performed in France for 26 years, employee residing in France, employer having referred to French law during dismissal), the protective rules of French labour law (mandatory rules) must prevail over the arbitration clause.

The court's reasoning - broken down

The Court of Cassation based its decision on several elements. First, it noted that the place of formation of the contract (the place where it was signed) could not be determined, but that the contract had been performed in France for 26 years, and the addendum had been signed in Lille. Next, it noted that the employer, in its dismissal letter, had expressly referred to the provisions of the French Labour Code, particularly the law of 13 July 1973 on termination of employment contracts.

In law, the Court applied the principle that mandatory provisions protecting workers (i.e., imperative rules that protect employees, such as dismissal compensation, notice periods, etc.) apply as soon as the work is performed in France, regardless of the law chosen by the parties. The arbitration clause, although lawful under English law, was held void because it had the effect of depriving the employee of the protection of the French employment tribunal, the natural judge of employment contracts.

However, note: the Court did not declare all arbitration clauses void in international contracts. It only said that, in this specific case, the lower courts (the appeal judges) could rightly disregard the clause given the circumstances. It is a decision on its facts (a decision dependent on the particular facts), but it establishes a strong principle: French mandatory law can override an arbitration clause if it undermines the protection of workers.

What few people know is that this decision was subsequently confirmed in several rulings, notably the "Babcock" decision of 1992, where the Court of Cassation held that an arbitration clause in an international employment contract is void if it infringes French mandatory law.

What this means for you - practically

If you are an employee working in France for a foreign company, this decision protects you. You can bring proceedings before the employment tribunal of your place of work (e.g., Bastia if you work in Borgo, or Ajaccio if you are in L'Île-Rousse) even if your contract provides for arbitration abroad. The employer cannot impose a distant and costly arbitrator on you.

If you are a foreign employer, remember that having an employee work in France exposes you to French labour law, which is very protective. An arbitration clause will not shield you from a claim before the employment tribunal. For example, a US company that hires a salesperson in L'Île-Rousse must comply with the French Labour Code and cannot impose arbitration in New York.

For real estate professionals (agents, notaries) who employ staff in France, this decision is a reminder: even if your contract is drafted in English with an arbitration clause, the French employment tribunal will remain competent. undefined, I have encountered cases where real estate agents in Bastia worked for a company based in Monaco with a Monégasque arbitration clause: the 1975 case law allowed them to be judged in Bastia.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• For employees: If your contract contains an arbitration clause, don't panic. In case of a dispute, bring your case before the employment tribunal of your place of work. The clause will likely be disregarded if it deprives you of the protection of French law.
• For employers: If you hire in France, apply French labour law from the start. Do not rely on an arbitration clause to avoid the employment tribunal. Instead, consider mediation in France to defuse conflicts.
• For contract drafters: Avoid arbitration clauses in employment contracts performed in France. They risk being declared void and could be considered abusive. Prefer a jurisdiction clause in favour of French courts.
• For lawyers: In a dispute with an employee working in France, check if the contract contains an arbitration clause. If so, raise French mandatory law to have it set aside. The 1975 case law is still relevant.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The 1975 decision is part of a protective line for employees. It was confirmed by the "Babcock" decision (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 2 December 1992, No. 90-42.929), where the High Court held that "the arbitration clause inserted in an international employment contract is void, as soon as it deprives the employee of the legal protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of French law." In other words, any arbitration clause that prevents the employee from accessing the French employment tribunal is null and void.

However, for commercial contracts (between businesses), the arbitration clause remains valid and even encouraged. For example, a franchise contract between an Italian company and a franchisee in Borgo can validly provide for arbitration in Milan. The difference lies in the nature of the contract: labour law is protective and mandatory, which is not the case for commercial law.

The current trend of the courts is to protect the employee in all circumstances, even in the presence of sophisticated clauses. Thus, in 2021, the Court of Cassation annulled a choice of forum clause (a clause choosing a court) that designated a foreign court, on the grounds that it hindered the employee's action before the French employment tribunal (Soc., 10 March 2021, No. 19-16.399).

What you absolutely must remember

1. Who can rely on this case law? Any employee working in France, even under a contract with a foreign company.
2. What are the effects? The arbitration clause (or any clause that excludes the employment tribunal) is void if it deprives the employee of the protection of French law.
3. What are the limits? This nullity only applies to employment contracts, not commercial contracts. It requires that the work is performed in France.
4. What to do in case of an arbitration clause? Bring the case before the employment tribunal of your place of work. The employer must demonstrate that the clause is valid, which is very difficult.
5. What is the time limit to act? The employee has 2 years from the termination of the contract to bring proceedings before the employment tribunal (Article L.1471-1 of the French Labour Code).

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →