![Default Article Featured Image_laptop-newspaper-global-article-090623[95].jpg](https://images.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltd4dd5b2d705252bc/blt61f52659e86e1227/64ff207a8606a815d1c86182/laptop-newspaper-global-article-090623[95].jpg?width=3840&quality=75&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
This story is about a sales employee performing his work in a vast territory who could freely organize his work planning as long as he provided his employer with detailed reports, in compliance with his employment contract.
During the course of the employment contract, the employer notified the employee of the implementation of a geolocation system on his professional car in order to improve processes and the planning of his commercial visits.
In reality, the employer used this system to monitor the working hours of the employee and to calculate his remuneration.
The employee claimed that this situation led to a termination of his contract at the initiative of the employer, who breached the terms of his employment contract.
The labor court agreed with the employee’s point of view and characterized the employer’s breach of the employment contract as an unlawful termination. The employer was sentenced to pay indemnities to the employee.
The employer challenged this decision by arguing that a company is entitled to implement a geolocation system on an employee’s car to monitor his working hours when no other mean is available and that its implementation had been notified to the employee.
In its decision of November 3, the labor chamber of the Supreme Court did not approve such arguments and held that:
- The implementation of a geolocation system by an employer is lawful only when no other mean is available and is not relevant when the employee is entitled to freely organize his work planning;
- The implementation of a geolocation system cannot be used for other purposes than the ones notified to the CNIL and to employees.
The Supreme Court considered that the detailed reports of activity of the employee were sufficient to monitor the employee activity and, then, the use of a geolocation system was not relevant. It also considered that the purpose of the geolocation system had been diverted by the employer.
Then, according to the Supreme Court, the employer took the initiative of a serious breach of the employment contract leading to the termination of the employee, such termination being characterized as an unvalid firing.
