Cumulation of Retirement Benefits: the Monnaie de Paris Decision that Changes Everything

Imagine the scene: in Liévin, Mr. Durand, an employee of the Monnaie de Paris for 35 years, is about to retire. Six months before his departure, his employer offers him the famous 'coup de chapeau': a salary increase that will boost his pension. But then the administration refuses him the retirement indemnity provided for by Article L. 1237-9 of the Labour Code, on the grounds that the two benefits cannot be cumulated. Result: Mr. Durand loses €8,000. An absurd situation, which the Court of Cassation resolved on 20 November 2019.

What is the central question? Can one benefit from both a company usage (the 'coup de chapeau') and a statutory retirement indemnity? The answer is yes, but one must understand why. In this decision, the Supreme Court recalls a simple principle: benefits that do not have the same purpose can be cumulated. And this is excellent news for future retirees.

But what does this actually change for you, as a property owner in Nœux-les-Mines or an employee elsewhere in France? A lot, because this decision draws a clear line between what is owed by the employer under a local usage and what is owed by law. Let us decipher this decision together, without unnecessary jargon.

The Facts: a Story that Happens Every Day

Mr. X, an employee of the public establishment Monnaie de Paris, is about to exercise his retirement rights. As per an old usage in this company, called 'coup de chapeau', employees who have not reached the last step of the pay scale receive, six months before their departure, a salary increase. This increase has a double effect: it increases the salary received during the last six months, and above all it increases the amount of the retirement pension, calculated on the best years.

But Article L. 1237-9 of the Labour Code also provides that any employee who voluntarily leaves the company to receive an old-age pension is entitled to a retirement indemnity. Amount: €8,000. The employer refuses to pay it, arguing that the 'coup de chapeau' is already a departure benefit, and that the two cannot be cumulated. Mr. X brings the matter before the labour tribunal, then the court of appeal, which rules in his favour. But the employer appeals to the Court of Cassation.

Before the Court of Cassation, the precise question is: do these two benefits have the same purpose? Monnaie de Paris argues yes: both aim to improve the financial situation of the employee retiring. In short, they would be redundant. But the Court disagrees. It observes that the 'coup de chapeau' is a usage specific to the establishment, which aims to increase the salary and, by ricochet, the pension. The statutory indemnity, on the other hand, aims to compensate for the loss of employment due to voluntary retirement. In other words, they do not have the same purpose, therefore they can be cumulated.

The Reasoning of the Court — Dissected

The Court of Cassation relies on a general principle: in case of concurrence of norms (i.e., when several rules apply), benefits that have the same purpose are not cumulated. Only the most favourable applies. But here, the purpose differs. The 'coup de chapeau' is a temporary salary increase, which serves to improve the retirement pension. The departure indemnity is a lump sum paid at the time of departure, which compensates for the end of the employment relationship.

The Court specifies that the usage does not provide that it excludes the payment of the statutory indemnity. And above all, it does not say that the employees concerned are necessarily those who have been long-term employees of the establishment. The 'coup de chapeau' is more favourable for employees, but that does not prevent cumulation. In short, the employer cannot choose which of the two schemes to apply: it must pay both.

This reasoning is a confirmation of previous case law: for several years, the Court of Cassation has protected employees' rights regarding the cumulation of benefits, as long as they pursue distinct purposes. However, caution is needed: if the two benefits had the same purpose (for example, two departure indemnities), then only the most favourable would be due. What few people know is that this decision applies to all employers, not just Monnaie de Paris. Any company usage that improves retirement can be cumulated with the statutory indemnity.

What This Changes for You — Concretely

For employees: if you benefit from a company usage (departure bonus, pre-retirement salary increase, etc.), you can also claim the statutory retirement indemnity. Example with figures: in Nœux-les-Mines, a territorial civil service employee obtained €5,400 in indemnity in addition to his 'coup de chapeau' of €450 per month for six months. That is a total gain of nearly €8,100.

For employers: you must check your usages. If you practice a 'coup de chapeau' (or any similar benefit), you cannot avoid paying the statutory indemnity. undefined, I have encountered cases where companies wrongly refused cumulation, believing the usage was more favourable. Result: costly litigation.

For retirees: if you left your company less than 5 years ago (the limitation period for salary claims), you can still claim the indemnity if it was not paid to you. Act quickly.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check your collective agreement: it may provide for specific benefits upon retirement. Compare them with the statutory indemnity to know if they can be cumulated.
• Keep all documents: payslips, letters from the employer, company agreement. In case of dispute, these are your evidence.
• Make a written claim: if your employer refuses cumulation, send a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt to formalise your request. This interrupts the limitation period.
• Consult a lawyer before signing a receipt: if the employer offers you a final settlement including the indemnity, do not sign without checking that it is correctly calculated. A receipt for final settlement may bar any further recourse.

Further Analysis: Related Case Law and Developments

This decision is part of a line favourable to employees. Already, the Court of Cassation had ruled in a decision of 13 January 2016 (No. 14-20.224) that the retirement indemnity could be cumulated with a conventional retirement indemnity, provided their causes were different. Here, the cause is the company usage for the 'coup de chapeau', and the law for the statutory indemnity.

Conversely, the Court recently recalled that two indemnities with the same purpose (for example, two redundancy indemnities) are not cumulated. This means the line is fine. The trend is therefore towards cumulation when the purposes are distinct. In future, judges will have to clarify what constitutes an identical 'purpose': is it the economic purpose or the legal cause? This decision opens the way for a broad interpretation.

What You Absolutely Must Remember

FAQ:

Can I cumulate my retirement indemnity with a 'coup de chapeau'? Yes, because they do not have the same purpose. One improves your pension, the other compensates your departure.

What if my employer refuses cumulation? Send a registered letter requesting payment of the statutory indemnity. If the refusal persists, bring the matter before the labour tribunal within 5 years.

What are the time limits for action? The limitation period is 5 years from the end of the employment contract to claim the indemnity. After this period, you lose your right.

Does this decision apply to all employers? Yes, to all, public or private, as long as a similar usage exists.

Do I have to declare these sums to the tax authorities? The retirement indemnity is partially exempt from income tax (up to €5,000). The 'coup de chapeau' is taxable salary.

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. Make an appointment →