Paid Leave and Commissions: Agreement Must Be Proven (Cass. soc., 3 March 1971)

Imagine: you own a small flat in Montauban, and you entrust its management to an estate agent. The agent receives commissions on each rental. But when he takes his leave, you wonder whether he is entitled to a paid leave allowance in addition to his commissions. This is exactly the question raised in the decision of 3 March 1971. This decision, handed down by the Court of Cassation, answers a crucial question: can the employer assert that the paid leave allowance is already included in the commission percentage? The answer is no, unless he proves a clear agreement between the parties.

In short, a commercial representative (or travelling salesman) claimed from his employer payment of paid leave allowances for the period from 1954 to 1967. The employer defended himself by saying: "We had agreed by mutual consent that the paid leave allowance was included in the commission rate." But could he simply rely on this assertion? The Court of Cassation ruled: the employer must provide proof of this agreement. Without proof, he must pay.

This decision is a valuable weapon for employees remunerated by commission, and a warning for employers who wish to exempt themselves from their legal obligations. But what exactly does it change for you, as an owner or property professional in Beaumont-de-Lomagne or elsewhere? Let's break it down.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

Mr. Y... was a commercial representative in the service of a company since 1954. His remuneration consisted solely of commissions on the sales he made. For thirteen years, from 1954 to 1967, he received no paid leave allowance. In 1967, he decided to claim from his employer payment of these allowances for the entire period. The employer, to defeat this claim, argued that he owed nothing. He alleged that a verbal agreement between them provided that the paid leave allowance was included in the commission percentage. In other words, the commission rate was supposedly increased to include this allowance.

The dispute came before the industrial tribunal, then the court of appeal. The latter found in favour of the employee: it ordered the employer to pay a compensatory paid leave allowance for the period from 1954 to 1967. The employer appealed to the Court of Cassation, but the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal. It confirmed that the employer must prove the existence of the agreement.

What is striking in this case is the duration: thirteen years without any claim. But the Court of Cassation reminds that the right to paid leave is a fundamental right, which is not lost by silence.

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The Court of Cassation relies on the principle that the paid leave allowance is owed to the employee. Article L. 223-11 of the Labour Code (now L. 3141-22) provides that the employee is entitled to an allowance at least equal to 1/10th of the total gross remuneration received during the reference period. This allowance cannot be included in the monthly salary unless expressly agreed and proven.

The employer invoked a verbal agreement according to which the allowance was included in the commissions. But the Court of Cassation considered this insufficient. It clearly states: "The employer who, to defeat a claim for payment of paid leave allowances made by a representative, argues that he owes nothing in this respect, alleging that, by mutual agreement, the parties had agreed that the paid leave allowance would be included in the commission percentage, must establish the reality of this agreement."

In other words, it is for the employer to prove that the employee agreed that the allowance be integrated into the commissions. This proof may be provided in writing (employment contract, amendment) or by any means (witness statements, correspondence), but it must be clear and unambiguous. In this case, the employer provided no proof, so he must pay.

Note, however: this decision does not say that inclusion of the allowance in commissions is prohibited. It simply says that, to be valid, the agreement must be proven by the person who relies on it. This is a classic application of the maxim "the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts".

What this changes for you — concretely

If you are a commercial representative or an employee remunerated by commission, this decision protects you. You are entitled to a separate paid leave allowance, unless you have signed a clear agreement stipulating otherwise. undefined, I have encountered cases where salespeople in Beaumont-de-Lomagne were faced with an alleged verbal agreement. Without written proof, the employer is ordered to pay.

If you are an employer, you must be vigilant: if you wish to include the paid leave allowance in commissions, include it in the employment contract or an amendment. Specify the commission rate and mention that this rate includes the paid leave allowance. Otherwise, you risk having to pay back-pay for several years. For example, for a salesperson receiving €2,000 in commissions per month, the paid leave allowance represents 10%, i.e., €200 per month. Over 13 years, that amounts to €31,200, not including interest.

For landlord owners who employ a caretaker or concierge remunerated partly by commissions on rentals, the same rule applies. Ensure that the contract explicitly provides for the inclusion of paid leave in the remuneration.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Draft a clear employment contract: expressly state whether the paid leave allowance is included in commissions, with a detailed calculation.
• Keep written evidence: any verbal agreement should be confirmed in writing (email, letter, amendment) to avoid later challenges.
• Conduct an annual review: each year, provide the employee with a summary of commissions and paid leave, with a final settlement.
• Consult a lawyer lawyer: before changing the remuneration method, seek advice to secure the practice.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of consistent case law. As early as 1956, the Court of Cassation had ruled that the paid leave allowance cannot be included in salary unless an express agreement provides for it (Cass. soc., 10 May 1956). More recently, the Court of Cassation reminded that an annual flat-rate in days cannot include the paid leave allowance without a specific clause (Cass. soc., 13 March 2013).

The trend is therefore clear: judges protect the right to paid leave, considered a public policy right. Employers who attempt to circumvent this obligation through implied agreements are systematically brought into line. For the future, it is likely that case law will become even stricter, requiring clear and unambiguous written proof.

Frequently asked questions

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 →