A pharmacy technician who had been involved in an altercation with a customer, which was later recognized as a work-related accident, was dismissed. He then filed claims before the Employment Tribunal asking for damages on the ground that his employer had breached his duty of care.
The French Supreme Court held the claim inadmissible on the basis that compensation for a workplace accident cannot be pursued under ordinary civil law. What matters is not how the employee labels the claim, but where the loss comes from. Here, the sick leave stemmed directly from the accident recognized by the social security authorities so much that the claim in substance sought compensation for that accident (whether or not the employer had breached its duty of care). It falls therefore outside the Employment Tribunal’s remit and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the social security courts.
In other words, a loss that originates from a recognized workplace accident cannot be rebranded as an ordinary employment claim simply by invoking the duty of care. The Employment Tribunal keeps jurisdiction over losses deriving from the termination itself (and over genuinely distinct harm unconnected to the accident), but everything traceable to the accident belongs before the social security courts.
The immediate reflex is therefore to raise inadmissibility early (being noted that it is a matter of public policy and can be argued at any stage).
You should however bear in mind that the employee can still bring an “inexcusable fault” (faute inexcusable) action before the social security courts, which unlocks compensation beyond the flat-rate scheme. To prevent this type of claim, companies should document every incident report and record the measures taken in response. That paper trail is often the only real line of defense against a finding of inexcusable fault.
