Reference Decision: cc • No. 13-14.607 • 2015-02-11 • View the decision →
Imagine yourself in Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, one June morning, waiting for the bus to go to work. You check the transport app and everything is normal. Then, suddenly, a strike notice filed by a union announces several days of disruption. But in the end, only a few drivers cease work, and you wonder: is the notice still valid? This is exactly the question that arose in Marseille, and which the Court of Cassation resolved in a judgment of 11 February 2015 (No. 13-14.607).
For owners and tenants in Mimizan or elsewhere, this decision has unsuspected repercussions: it reminds us that the right to strike is an individual right exercised collectively, and that the employer cannot impose an obligation of result regarding the duration of the strike. In other words, the union notice sets a framework, but each employee remains free to interpret it.
In this article, we will break down this decision for you, non-lawyers, with concrete examples from my practice in Mont-de-Marsan. You will understand why a strike notice does not oblige you to cease work for its entire announced duration, and what this changes for you as an employer, employee, or user of public services.
The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day
In June 2011, the Marseille Transport Authority (RTM) received a strike notice filed by the CGT union, announcing a work stoppage from 1 July 2011, for an indefinite period. The notice specified the reasons and the start and end times, in accordance with Article L. 2512-3 of the Labour Code (which requires, in public services, a five clear days' notice stating the start and end times of the strike).
But here's the thing: for the first three days, no employee ceased work. The RTM management then displayed an information note stating that the notice had become ineffective, and that no work stoppage could take place within that framework. In short, it considered that if no one strikes at the beginning, the notice is void. Some employees, however, had individually expressed their intention to strike later.
The CGT union challenged this note before the Tribunal de grande instance of Marseille, which ruled in its favour. The Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence upheld the judgment in January 2013, and the RTM appealed to the Court of Cassation. But the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal: it upheld the reasoning of the lower courts, holding that the employer cannot infer from the absence of strikers in the first days that the notice has become ineffective. The individual declarations and service sheets proved that employees intended to strike, and that was enough to maintain the validity of the notice.
The Reasoning of the Court — Explained
The Court of Cassation relies on Article L. 2512-3 of the Labour Code, which imposes a notice for strikes in public services. This text requires that the notice state the start and end times of the work stoppage. But the Court clarifies that employees, as the sole holders of the right to strike, are not required to cease work for the entire duration indicated in the notice.
In other words, the union notice is a collective formality, but the exercise of the right to strike remains individual. Each employee freely decides whether to strike, when, and for how long, within the framework set by the notice. The employer cannot therefore consider that the absence of strikers in the first three days nullifies the notice. That would confuse the notice (a collective act) with the individual action.
The Court upholds the analysis of the Court of Appeal, which found that the individual declarations of intention to strike and the service sheets (an internal document specifying the hours and duration of the work stoppage for each striker) established the employees' willingness to strike, without any misuse of legal requirements or intention to disrupt the company. In other words, as long as employees respect the hours stated in their service sheets, their strike is lawful, even if it does not exactly match the duration of the notice.
This decision confirms previous case law: the right to strike is an individual right, and the notice is only a condition for its collective implementation. It does not create a change in direction, but it provides an important clarification on the effect of the notice: it does not create an obligation for employees to strike for its entire duration.
What This Changes for You — Practically
For employers, especially those managing public services or transport companies, this decision prohibits considering a notice as void simply because few employees strike at the beginning. You cannot display a note cancelling the notice; you must wait for individual acts of strike or declarations of intention to assess the reality of the movement.
For employees, you are free to choose when and for how long you strike, provided you respect the framework of the notice (dates and times). If you wish to strike for only one day while the notice announces three, that is possible. But be careful: you must inform your employer of your intention, for example via a service sheet, to avoid any misunderstanding.
For transport users in Mimizan or Saint-Paul-lès-Dax, this decision means that an announced strike can be effective even if the first days are calm. Do not presume that the notice is void if you do not see immediate disruption. Stay informed via official channels.
In practice, if you are an employer and you have a strike notice, do not take unilateral measures such as displaying a note cancelling the notice. You risk being convicted for obstructing the right to strike (a criminal offence). If you are an employee, do not hesitate to manifest your intention to strike in writing, even if you do not follow the exact duration of the notice.
Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute
- For employers: never display a note cancelling a strike notice — even if no employee ceases work in the first days. Wait for individual evidence (service sheets, declarations) to assess the scale of the movement.
- For employees: formalise your intention to strike in writing — a simple individual declaration or service sheet is enough to demonstrate your willingness to strike, even if you do not follow the entire duration of the notice.
- For unions: draft precise notices — clearly state the start and end times of the strike, as well as the reasons. This avoids any challenge to the validity of the notice.
- For users: do not jump to conclusions — the absence of disruption at the beginning of an announced strike does not mean the movement has been abandoned. Regularly check official information.
Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments
This decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. For example, in a judgment of 13 February 2008 (No. 06-44.523), the Court had already held that the strike notice does not oblige employees to cease work for its entire duration. The novelty here is its application to the particular case where no strikers appear in the first days, which does not render the notice void.
On the other hand, the Court of Cassation has also reminded that employees cannot use the notice to disrupt the company abusively. In a judgment of 28 November 2012 (No. 11-24.365), it upheld the sanction of an employee who had struck intermittently to deliberately disrupt production. The line is therefore thin between the legitimate exercise of the right to strike and abuse. In this case, the judges considered that the service sheets respected the hours and did not demonstrate an intention to disrupt.
For the future, this case law confirms the individual freedom of the striking employee, but it requires employers to be cautious: they cannot anticipate the scale of the strike based solely on the notice. This may encourage employers to engage in better dialogue with unions to understand the actual intentions of employees.
In Practice: What to Do
FAQ:
Can I be sanctioned if I only strike for 2 hours when the notice announces 8 hours? No, as long as you respect the hours of the notice and inform your employer (e.g., via a service sheet).
What should I do if my employer displays a note cancelling the notice because no one struck on the first day? You can challenge this note through legal proceedings. Apply to the judicial court by way of interim relief (urgent procedure) to request the removal of the note. The decision we are commenting on shows that the employer is wrong.
Can a strike notice be withdrawn by the union? Yes, the union can withdraw its notice at any time. But if employees have already expressed their intention to strike, they can continue the movement individually.
What are the risks for an employer who cancels a notice? They may be convicted for obstructing the right to strike, which is a criminal offence punishable by one year's imprisonment and a fine of €15,000 (Article L. 2512-5 of the Labour Code).
How can I prove that I want to strike? By any means: written declaration, service sheet, email, text message. The important thing is that the employer is aware of your intention.
Are you in a similar situation? A 30-minute initial consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →
