Aller au contenu principal
Split Holidays: The Right to Extra Days for Employees of Design Offices
Droit-immobilier

Split Holidays: The Right to Extra Days for Employees of Design Offices

📅 Décision du 19 June 2002⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 12 vues📖 5 min de lecture

The Court of Cassation clarifies that employees of technical design offices are entitled to extra days of leave in case of split holidays, even if the collective agreement provides for working days. A decision that protects employees' rights.

Reference Decision: cc • No. 99-45.837 • 2002-06-19 • View the decision →

Imagine: you work in a design office in Cagnes-sur-Mer, and your employer asks you to take some of your leave outside the summer period. You think you are entitled to extra days? That is exactly the question that arose for an employee of the company Speos. This decision of the Court of Cassation clarifies a point that is often a source of conflict: does splitting annual leave give the right to extra days, even if the collective agreement refers to working days? The answer is yes, and it has concrete consequences for thousands of employees.

The facts: a story like any other

Mr. X, an employee of the company Speos, a technical design office based in Antibes, took his leave from 1996 to 1999 by splitting it: he took part in the summer and the rest at other times of the year, as his employer requested. But when he claimed the two extra days of leave provided for by Article L. 223-8 of the Labour Code (now L. 3141-23) in case of split holidays, his employer refused, arguing that the collective agreement for technical design offices (known as "Syntec") provided for calculation in working days and that this provision derogated from the general law. The employee then brought the case before the industrial tribunal. At first instance, he won: the tribunal ordered the employer to pay him a compensatory allowance. But Speos appealed. The Versailles Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, and the case went up to the Court of Cassation. The employee ultimately prevailed, but the journey was long.

The reasoning of the court — explained

The Court of Cassation had to answer a specific question: does Article 23 of the Syntec collective agreement, which sets the duration of leave in working days and provides for extra days if the employee takes leave outside the period (1 May to 31 October), derogate from Article L. 223-8 of the Labour Code? The latter provides that if the employee splits his main leave (excluding the 5th week), he is entitled to two working days of extra leave. The Court ruled: no, the agreement does not expressly derogate. It is merely a transposition of the legal duration into working days. In other words, the right to extra days in case of split holidays remains applicable, even if the agreement uses the term "working days". The judges emphasised that to derogate from a mandatory legal provision, a collective agreement must do so expressly and clearly. However, Article 23 does not state that it excludes extra days. In short, an employee who splits his leave at the request of his employer retains his right to the two extra days. This decision confirms the primacy of the Labour Code over collective agreements when they are not sufficiently precise.

What this changes for you — concretely

For employees of design offices, engineering firms and consulting companies, this decision is a protection. If you split your leave (for example, you take 12 days in August and the rest in November), and your employer asks you to do so, you are entitled to two extra days of leave or a compensatory allowance. In Antibes, an employee who took 18 days in summer and 6 days in winter out of the 24 annual working days could claim 2 extra days if they could not be taken. For employers, beware: failing to grant these days exposes you to judgments at the industrial tribunal, with damages that can amount to several hundred euros per year per employee, not to mention procedural costs. If you are an employee, check your pay slips: if you split your leave without obtaining extra days, you can claim back pay for the last 3 years (three-year limitation period).

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

  • Check your collective agreement: even if it uses working days, the right to extra days in case of splitting remains, unless there is an express derogation.
  • Keep your leave requests in writing: if the employer requires splitting, keep a record (email, letter) to prove that it was at his request.
  • Calculate your entitlements: for a split of the main leave (excluding the 5th week), you are entitled to 2 additional working days if you have taken at least 6 days of leave outside the legal period (1 May to 31 October).
  • Consult a lawyer lawyer: if in doubt, expert advice can avoid lengthy and costly litigation.

This decision is part of a protective line for employees. The Court of Cassation has already held, in a judgment of 28 March 2000 (no. 98-40.344), that collective agreements can only derogate from the rules on splitting if they are more favourable. Here, the Court confirms that the mere fact of expressing leave in working days is not a derogation. Since 2002, the trend has been constant: judges protect the right to extra days, even when the employer relies on a collective agreement. For the future, employers will need to be careful in drafting company agreements if they wish to exclude these extra days. What few people know is that this right also applies to executives on a fixed number of days per year, subject to certain conditions.

Checklist before taking action

  • Have I split my main leave (excluding the 5th week)? If yes, I am entitled to 2 extra days.
  • Did my employer ask me to split? Even without an express request, voluntary splitting gives the right to extra days.
  • Have I taken at least 6 working days outside the period (1 May to 31 October)? This is the condition for benefiting from the 2 days.
  • Has my employer refused to grant me these days? I can bring the case before the industrial tribunal within 3 years.
  • Have I kept proof of my leave dates? Yes, pay slips, emails, written requests.

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 →

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre rendez-vous pour une consultation  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Questions fréquentes

Qu'est-ce que le fractionnement des congés payés ?

Le fractionnement consiste à prendre son congé principal (généralement 4 semaines) en plusieurs fois, par exemple 2 semaines en été et 2 semaines à une autre période. En droit du travail, si le salarié prend une partie de ses congés en dehors de la période légale (1er mai-31 octobre), il a droit à des jours de congés supplémentaires.

Ai-je droit à des jours supplémentaires si je fractionne mes congés ?

Oui, si vous fractionnez votre congé principal (hors 5e semaine) et que vous prenez au moins 6 jours ouvrés en dehors de la période du 1er mai au 31 octobre, vous avez droit à 2 jours ouvrés de congés supplémentaires, sauf si votre convention collective prévoit une dérogation expresse plus favorable.

Que faire si mon employeur refuse de m'accorder ces jours supplémentaires ?

Vous pouvez réclamer ces jours par écrit (lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception) et, en cas de refus, saisir le conseil de prud'hommes dans un délai de 3 ans à compter de la date à laquelle vous auriez dû bénéficier des jours.

La convention collective Syntec peut-elle supprimer ces jours supplémentaires ?

Non, la Cour de cassation a jugé que la convention Syntec ne déroge pas expressément à la loi. Elle ne fait que transposer la durée des congés en jours ouvrés, mais le droit aux jours supplémentaires en cas de fractionnement reste acquis.

Puis-je demander une indemnité compensatrice si je n'ai pas pris ces jours ?

Oui, si vous n'avez pas pu prendre les jours supplémentaires, vous pouvez demander une indemnité compensatrice égale à la valeur de ces jours, calculée sur la base de votre salaire journalier.

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 99-45.837
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 19 juin 2002

Mots-clés

congés fractionnésjours supplémentairesbureau d'étudesconvention collective SyntecCour de cassation

Cas d'usage pratiques

1

Employee of a design office in Antibes splitting his leave

Mr. Dupont, an employee at Speos in Antibes, takes 12 days in August and 6 days in November. He did not obtain the 2 extra days. He can claim back pay for 2 days, about €300 per year, for the last 3 years.

Application pratique:

Mr. Dupont must gather his pay slips and leave requests, then send a registered letter to his employer. If refused, he can bring the case before the industrial tribunal of Grasse. The 2002 case law is in his favour.

2

Employer of a consulting firm in Cagnes-sur-Mer

Company B, a consulting firm in Cagnes-sur-Mer, refused to grant extra days to an employee who split his leave. It risks being ordered to pay damages and back pay for several employees.

Application pratique:

The employer must review its practices: either grant the 2 extra days or, if the collective agreement expressly allows it, provide for a derogation. It can consult a lawyer to check the compliance of its company agreements.

3

Employee on a fixed number of days in a consulting company

Ms. Martin, a manager on a fixed number of days per year in a consulting company in Antibes, splits her leave. She thinks she is not entitled to extra days because she is on a fixed number of days. In reality, the right to extra days also applies, subject to the arrangement of the fixed number of days.

Application pratique:

Ms. Martin must check her fixed-day agreement: if it provides for an equivalent number of leave days, splitting gives the right to extra days. She can ask her employer to grant them or take them as time off.

Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

Articles similaires en Droit-immobilier

Voir tout →

Servitude de passage et tierce opposition : protéger son droit d'accès en copropriété

Un copropriétaire peut-il s'opposer à la suppression d'une servitude de passage qui profite à son lot, même si le syndicat accepte la fin de l'enclave ? La Cour de cassation répond oui, reconnaissant un intérêt distinct pour agir en tierce opposition.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Enclave et servitude : quand le droit du travail ne crée pas de passage forcé

La Cour de cassation rappelle que l'état d'enclave d'un fonds ne peut résulter des obligations réglementaires imposées aux entreprises en matière d'issues et dégagements. Ainsi, un propriétaire ne peut exiger un passage sur le fonds voisin au seul motif que son bâtiment doit respecter des normes de sécurité incendie.

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence, le préavis s'impose

Lorsque, faute de convention écrite ou dans le silence de cette convention, les parties à un contrat de transport public routier de marchandises n'ont pas stipulé une durée de préavis de rupture, cette durée est fixée par un contrat-type approuvé par décret pris en application de l'article L. 1432-4 du code des transports. Les dispositions de l'article L. 442-6, I, 5°, devenu L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce ne trouvent alors pas à s'appliquer. Il en va de même lorsque la convention écrite renvoie expressément à la clause du contrat-type fixant une telle durée. Lorsque les parties ont conclu un contrat écrit stipulant la durée du préavis de rupture, les dispositions de l'article L. 442-1, II, du code de commerce sont applicables. Dans cette hypothèse, l'auteur de la rupture qui a consenti à son partenaire un délai de préavis au moins égal à celui prévu au contrat-type dans sa version en vigueur à la date de la notification de la rupture, ne saurait voir sa responsabilité engagée sur le fondement de ce texte

23 juil. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit droit-immobilier

Tous les articles Droit-immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide