Allocation of Seats on the Central Works Council: The Rule of the Highest Average Explained

In Langon, Gironde, a bank branch has just closed. Employees are worried: who will represent them on the Central Works Council (CCE) to defend their interests? The allocation of seats between unions and non-unionised candidates may seem technical, but it has direct consequences on everyone's voice. Are you the owner of a residential investment property in Bordeaux? Do you rent offices to a bank? This decision may indirectly concern you. Because professional electoral rules influence the life of companies, and therefore your rents or the value of your property.

The question every employer or union asks: how to allocate seats on the Central Works Council when several establishments have voted? Should votes be added together, or should a more subtle calculation be applied? The Court of Cassation, in a judgment of 1 April 1997, answers clearly: the rule of the highest average is used. In other words, the remaining seats go to those who have obtained the highest number of votes across all establishments.

This decision, rendered in the banking sector, is still authoritative today. It establishes a simple and fair method. But be careful: you still need to understand what the "highest average" is. Don't panic, we'll explain everything.

The Facts: A Story Like Those That Happen Every Day

We are in 1992. In a large bank, elections for the establishment committees have just taken place. Several unions and non-unionised candidates are in the running. The members of the Central Works Council (CCE), which represents all employees at the national level, must now be appointed. The collective agreement for bank staff provides for a proportional allocation based on the number of seats obtained in each establishment.

But a disagreement arises: how to allocate the remaining seats after the electoral quotient? The management proposes a method based on the largest remainder (i.e., the remainder of the division of votes by the quotient). A union contests this: according to it, the highest average must be applied, which compares the average number of votes per seat. The Tribunal de grande instance (TGI) of Paris agrees. The management appeals, but the Court of Appeal confirms. The case goes up to the Court of Cassation.

Plot twist: the Court quashes the appeal judgment on the ground that it did not consider whether the collective agreement required the highest average. It refers the case back to another Court of Appeal. Ultimately, the final decision confirms that the collective agreement, by referring to the "highest number of votes", does indeed impose the highest average method.

The Reasoning of the Court — Analysed

The judges of the Court of Cassation analysed Annex III, B-2°, of the collective agreement for banks. This text provides that the allocation of seats on the Central Works Council is proportional to the number of seats obtained in the establishments. It adds that the remaining seats are allocated to the trade union organisation or non-unionised candidates "having obtained the highest number of votes" in the elections of all the establishment committees in the relevant college.

In short, the agreement chose a simple rule: compare the total number of votes obtained by each list in all establishments, and give the remaining seats to those with the most. This is what is called the "highest average" (as opposed to the "largest remainder" method, which compares the remainders after division).

The Court of Cassation validates this interpretation. It specifies that the agreement, while providing for a special case (identical results), sets out a general principle of allocating remaining seats according to the highest average. Consequently, the Court of Appeal was right to apply this rule. This is neither a revolution nor a reversal: it is a confirmation of the will of the social partners.

What few people know is that this rule is more favourable to small lists than the largest remainder. Indeed, the highest average allows a list that has obtained a high total number of votes to secure an additional seat, even if its individual remainder is low. It is a form of reinforced proportionality.

What This Changes for You — Practically

Are you a landlord in Bordeaux, leasing premises to a bank? The method of calculating seats on the CCE may seem far removed from your concerns. But if the CCE is poorly composed, there may be disputes, strikes, or disruptions in your tenant's activity. And therefore delays in rent payments.

If you are a trade unionist or an employee representative, this decision gives you a weapon: in the event of a dispute over the allocation of seats, you can demand the application of the highest average if your collective agreement provides for it. Check the exact wording of your agreement: if it refers to the "highest number of votes" or "highest average", this method applies.

For employers, be careful: an error in the calculation can lead to the annulment of the CCE elections. undefined, I have come across cases where management used the largest remainder without realising it, and the court had to restart the entire process. Cost: several months of proceedings and a challenge to trade union representativeness.

And for non-unionised employees? This decision protects you: your vote counts the same as that of the unions. If you obtain a high total number of votes across all establishments, you can obtain a seat on the CCE, even if you are not organised as a union.

Four Tips to Avoid This Type of Dispute

• Read your collective agreement carefully: identify the articles on seat allocation and the calculation method. If the text mentions "the highest number of votes", it is the highest average. If it is "the largest remainder", the method is different.
• Create a calculation table before the election: simulate the allocation with both methods to anticipate disputes. Show it to stakeholders to validate the method.
• Keep all voting data by establishment: the total votes per list in each college. Without these figures, it is impossible to calculate the highest average.
• If in doubt, seek legal advice before the election: a 30-minute consultation with a specialised lawyer can save you months of litigation. In Bordeaux, I often receive unions who come with their draft allocation.

Further Reading: Related Case Law and Developments

This 1997 decision is part of a consistent line of the Court of Cassation. Already in 1993, in a similar case (Soc., 17 February 1993, No. 91-60.000), the Court had ruled that the rule of the highest average should be applied when the collective agreement does not specify a method. Here, the agreement was explicit, which reinforces the solution.

More recently, in 2018, the Court of Cassation recalled that the Central Works Council (now the Central Social and Economic Committee, CSEC) must be elected according to the same principles (Soc., 21 March 2018, No. 17-60.218). The highest average method therefore remains current.

The trend is clear: judges favour a simple and transparent method that best reflects the will of the voters. In the future, it is likely that collective agreements that are silent on the method will be interpreted as imposing the highest average, for the sake of fairness.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the highest average? It is a method of calculating the remaining seats after the electoral quotient. The total number of votes obtained by each list in all establishments is compared, and the seat is allocated to the one with the most votes. Example: List A has 100 votes, List B has 80, the seat goes to A.

Can I challenge an allocation made with the largest remainder method? Yes, if your collective agreement provides for the highest average. You must bring the matter before the Tribunal judiciaire (formerly TGI) within 15 days of the election. Beware of very short deadlines!

What are the deadlines for challenging CCE elections? You have 15 days from the proclamation of the results. After this period, the election is definitively validated. So you must act quickly.

Does this rule apply to the Social and Economic Committee (CSE)? Yes, the Central CSE (CSEC) follows the same rules as the former CCE. The 1997 decision is still relevant for CSEC elections.

What if the collective agreement says nothing about the method? In the absence of specification, the Court of Cassation imposes the highest average (Soc., 17 February 1993). So you can demand it.

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 →