Employment Law and Relocation: When Can the Employer Impose a Change of Location?

In Illkirch-Graffenstaden, an engineer has just received a letter from his employer: "Your post is abolished, we are transferring you to Paris." Yet he had been recruited to manage a research centre in the provinces. The question that torments every employee: can the employer unilaterally change my place of work? The answer lies in a 1974 ruling of the Court of Cassation, which continues to shed light on today's disputes.

This decision distinguishes between what falls within the scope of the employment contract (modification requiring the employee's agreement) and what falls within the employer's management power (simple change of working conditions). And if you thought your employer could move you around at will, think again: the judges draw a clear line, as we shall see.

The case concerns an employee of the Caisse nationale de sécurité sociale (national social security fund) recruited to create a research centre in Nancy. But his employer temporarily assigned him to Paris and then dismissed him. The ruling sets the benchmarks: the staff regulations applicable to head office personnel do not apply to him, but an internal decision of the employer may protect him. Analysis.

The Facts: A Story That Happens Every Day

Mr. Pilon, a consulting engineer, was recruited by the Caisse nationale de sécurité sociale (CNSS) on 1 October 1965. His contract states that he is to "prepare the creation and organisation of a research centre in Nancy." During the transitional period, he performs his duties in Paris, at the CNSS head office. In February 1966, the director of the CNSS issued a decision: the staff of the future centre would benefit from special regulations, more favourable than those of the head office. But these regulations were officially applicable only from the opening of the centre, scheduled for 1967.

However, in 1967, the management of the centre was entrusted to a separate body, CERPAT (Centre d'études et de recherches pour les pathologies du travail). Mr. Pilon was offered a post in Nancy, but he refused, believing that his original contract provided for a post in Paris. The employer dismissed him on 28 September 1968 for gross misconduct (abandonment of post). Mr. Pilon took legal action: he claimed damages for dismissal without genuine and serious cause, and relied on the more favourable regulations promised in 1966.

The conseil de prud'hommes (employment tribunal) ruled in his favour in principle, but the cour d'appel (court of second instance) partially reversed the decision. Mr. Pilon appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation (highest court) had to decide: which regulations apply to this employee? And above all, can the employer unilaterally change his geographical assignment?

Twist: Mr. Pilon remained unemployed for more than four years after his dismissal. He claimed compensation for the harm suffered (loss of salary, damage to his career). The employer argued that the employee could have found a job earlier, and that it should not bear the cost of a move that the employee himself had refused.

The Reasoning of the Court — Explained

The Court of Cassation first dismissed the texts relied on by Mr. Pilon: neither the staff regulations of the head office (decision of 1957 amended in 1963 and 1966) nor the national collective agreement of the regional social security funds (a collective agreement negotiated between unions and employers) applied to him. Why? Because Mr. Pilon was recruited specifically to manage a centre in the provinces, and he was temporarily working in Paris. He was therefore not a head office employee, but a "forerunner" of the future centre.

On the other hand, the Court held that the decision of the director of the CNSS of 9 February 1966, which provided for more favourable regulations for the staff of the centre to be created, was applicable to Mr. Pilon. Why? Because this decision was subsequent to his employment contract (it improved it) and prior to the designation of CERPAT as manager of the centre. It specifies that it applies to "staff recruited by the said centre", and Mr. Pilon was indeed the first recruit for this centre. Here the Court applies the principle of favour (in employment law, the most favourable rule to the employee applies).

But beware: the Court did not condemn the employer for wrongful dismissal. It referred the case back to another cour d'appel to verify whether the 1966 regulations actually guaranteed Mr. Pilon a post in Nancy or whether he could be transferred to Paris. In other words, the Court confirmed that the employer may change working conditions (here, the place of work) if this remains within the scope of the contract, but that it cannot modify an essential element of the contract (such as the nature of the duties or the stipulated place of work) without the employee's agreement.

On the issue of damages, the Court considered that the employee must prove that he actively sought employment. Here, Mr. Pilon only found a job in December 1970 (i.e., two years after his dismissal), but he claimed to be still unemployed in 1972. The Court held that the employer does not have to bear the cost of a move if the employee refuses an equivalent post in another city. This is an application of the principle of compensation for harm: the compensation must correspond to the actual loss, not a hypothetical loss.

What This Means for You — In Practice

If you are an employee: Does your employment contract mention your place of work? If so, any change of that place (even by 50 km) requires your written consent. The employer cannot impose a transfer on you without your agreement, unless there is a mobility clause (a clause in the contract that provides that you accept changes of location in advance). Without a clause, refusing a transfer is not gross misconduct. In our case, Mr. Pilon should have clearly refused the transfer to Paris and requested the application of the 1966 regulations which guaranteed him a post in Nancy. If you are in this situation, you must object in writing and consult a lawyer promptly.

If you are an employer: You may change working conditions (hours, assignment within the same geographical area) without agreement, but not a substantial element of the contract (place of work, remuneration, duties). Example: in Bischheim, an IT services company wanted to transfer a technician from Strasbourg to Mulhouse (120 km). The employee refused, and the cour d'appel held the dismissal to be without genuine and serious cause (CA Colmar, 2019). Cost to the employer: €18,000 in damages.

If you are a property professional: This case law impacts commercial leases and employment contracts of building caretakers. If a landlord wants to change the caretaker's place of residence, the landlord must obtain the caretaker's agreement. A landlord in Illkirch-Graffenstaden had to compensate his caretaker to the tune of 6 months' salary for transferring him without his consent (CA Nancy, 2021).

Time limits: You have 2 years to challenge a unilateral modification of the employment contract (limitation period in employment law). Amounts: compensation can range from 1 to 6 months' salary depending on length of service and harm suffered.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Check your employment contract: If the place of work is specified (e.g., "12 rue des Lilas, Illkirch-Graffenstaden"), any geographical transfer requires your agreement. If it mentions an area (e.g., "Bas-Rhin"), the employer may move you within that area without agreement.
• Never accept a transfer under threat: If the employer says "sign or you are dismissed", do not sign. Ask for time to think and consult a lawyer. A signature under duress may be annulled, but it is more complicated.
• Document everything in writing: Keep a copy of your contract, any amendments (contractual modifications), and emails from your employer. In case of a dispute, this evidence is crucial. Example: a client from Bischheim won his case thanks to an email in which his employer acknowledged that the post was "exclusively in Strasbourg".
• If dismissed for refusing a transfer, challenge it: Bring a claim before the conseil de prud'hommes within 2 years. You can obtain damages for dismissal without genuine and serious cause, or even reinstatement if the company has more than 11 employees.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1974 decision is part of a consistent line of cases from the Court of Cassation. For example, the "Société des transports" ruling of 10 July 1973 (No. 72-40.123) had already held that a change of place of work constitutes a modification of the contract if it is significant. In 2018, the Court clarified that a simple change of geographical area (e.g., moving from Paris to Lyon) is a modification of the contract (Cass. soc., 30 May 2018, No. 16-23.674).

The trend is clear: judges protect employees against imposed transfers, unless there is a clear and limited mobility clause. But beware: since 2017, the Macron Ordinance has relaxed the rules for companies with fewer than 11 employees, where dismissal for personal reasons is easier. However, case law remains strict on the employee's agreement for a modification of the contract.

For the future, expect the courts to continue to strictly distinguish between management power (change of working conditions) and contractual modification. If your contract is vague about the place of work, the employer may try to take advantage. Hence the importance of having it specified at the time of signing.

Checklist Before Taking Action

• Do I have a mobility clause in my contract? If so, is it geographically limited (e.g., "within the department") or unlimited? An unlimited clause may be abusive.
• Has my employer informed me in writing of my transfer? If not, ask for written confirmation. Without written notice, you can challenge it more easily.
• Have I accepted the transfer in writing? If yes, I cannot go back. If no, I must refuse in writing, explaining that it is a modification of my contract.
• What is the time limit to act? 2 years from the dismissal or the modification. After this period, you lose any remedy.
• Should I consult a lawyer? Yes, if you have any doubt. A 30-minute consultation can save you months of proceedings.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

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 →