Paid Holidays and Splitting: When the Collective Agreement Is Less Favourable than the Law

Imagine: you are an employee in Hénin-Beaumont, in a company where the collective agreement provides that you can take your paid holidays at any time of the year, without having to take 12 working days continuously between 1 May and 31 October. In exchange, you are entitled to one additional day of holiday. This seems advantageous? Not necessarily. Because if you take your 19 working days of holiday in July, you lose the benefit of the additional days for splitting provided by law. The question is simple: can a collective agreement be less favourable than the law on this point? The Court of Cassation ruled in 1994, and its answer is clear: no.

The Facts: A Story Like Many Others

Mr X, employed in a company in Nœux-les-Mines, benefits from a collective agreement that relaxes the rules for taking paid holidays. Instead of requiring the main portion of 12 working days to be taken between May and October, the agreement allows them to be taken at any time. In return, it grants only one additional day of holiday in case of splitting, whereas the Labour Code provides for two (if the employee takes less than 12 continuous days outside the legal period). For the period 1987-1988, Mr X takes 19 working days from 4 July to ... (date not specified). Considering that the agreement is less favourable to him than the law, he claims back pay and an additional day of holiday. The employer refuses, arguing that the agreement is overall more advantageous. The dispute goes to the industrial tribunal, then to the Court of Cassation.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The Court of Cassation must interpret Article L. 223-8, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code (now codified in Article L. 3141-19). This text provides that derogations may be granted by collective agreement to the rules on splitting, but only on condition that they are not overall less favourable than the law. The Court therefore examines whether the collective agreement of Mr X is overall less favourable. It notes that the law grants two additional days of holiday when the employee takes his main holidays outside the legal period (1 May - 31 October), while the agreement grants only one. The employer's argument that the flexibility in taking holidays compensates for this loss is rejected: the benefit of flexibility cannot compensate for a loss of holiday days, because these are separate rights. The Court therefore quashes the decision of the lower courts which had dismissed the employee's claim.

What This Means for You — In Practice

For employees: if your collective agreement provides for splitting rules less favourable than the law (fewer additional days, or none at all), you can claim back pay and additional holiday days. For example, in Nœux-les-Mines, an employee who took 19 days in July could obtain 2 additional paid holiday days instead of one. For employers: check your collective agreement. If it derogates from the law, ensure it is not overall less favourable. If it is, you risk back pay claims for several years (3-year limitation period for wages). For trade unions: this decision is a tool to negotiate more favourable agreements.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check your collective agreement: compare its provisions on paid holidays with the Labour Code. If it is less favourable, it is unlawful.
• Keep your payslips: in case of a dispute, they will be used to calculate back pay (basis: 1/10th of the gross salary for the reference period).
• Do an overall calculation: A collective agreement may be less favourable on one point but more favourable on another. But beware: the Court of Cassation requires each right to be assessed separately. Do not rely on an "overall more favourable" assessment.
• Consult a lawyer: before signing a splitting agreement or bringing an action, a lawyer specialised in employment law can assess your chances.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a consistent line: the Court of Cassation ensures that collective agreements are never less favourable than the law (Cass. soc., 21 October 1987, No. 84-43.994). More recently, the Court extended this principle to company agreements (Cass. soc., 25 March 2015, No. 13-25.738). The trend is clear: judges protect the minimum floor of employees' rights, and any derogation must be justified by an equivalent advantage. In the future, this case law could apply to other areas such as compensatory rest or public holidays.

In Practice: What to Do

FAQ:

• Q: Can I claim back pay for holidays taken more than 3 years ago? R: No, the general limitation period is 3 years for wages. But if you discovered the harm recently, the period runs from that discovery.
• Q: My employer granted me one additional holiday day in exchange for free splitting. Is this legal? R: Yes, if the collective agreement provides for it, but the advantage must be equivalent to the loss. If the law entitles you to 2 days, one day is not sufficient.
• Q: What should I do if my collective agreement is less favourable? R: Gather your payslips, calculate the number of holiday days you should have had, and bring a claim before the industrial tribunal. A lawyer can help you.

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