{"id":41705,"date":"2026-05-27T10:56:45","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T10:56:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/?p=41705"},"modified":"2026-05-27T10:56:45","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T10:56:45","slug":"return-to-work-medical-examinations-more-favourable-collective-agreement-provisions-prevail-over-statutory-thresholds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/return-to-work-medical-examinations-more-favourable-collective-agreement-provisions-prevail-over-statutory-thresholds\/","title":{"rendered":"Return-to-work medical examinations: more favourable collective agreement provisions prevail over statutory thresholds"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a ruling dated 6 May 2026 (French Supreme Court, 6 May 2026, No. 24-13.599<\/em>), the French Supreme Court held that the minimum period of absence due to non-occupational illness triggering a mandatory return-to-work medical examination may validly derive from more favourable provisions contained in a collective bargaining agreement, notwithstanding subsequent amendments to the applicable statutory regulations. The Court therefore confirmed that a collective agreement requiring a medical examination after three weeks\u2019 absence continued to apply despite the statutory threshold having been increased to sixty days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An employee working as a service operative in the cleaning sector was absent on sick leave from 6 October to 21 November 2022, namely for a total period of forty-six days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end of his sick leave, the employee informed his employer that he remained available to resume work. However, no return-to-work medical examination was arranged. The employer subsequently ceased paying the employee\u2019s remuneration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The employee then commenced summary proceedings before the Employment Tribunal seeking interim payments in respect of salary and accrued paid leave, together with damages for breach of the employer\u2019s duty to perform the employment contract in good faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The employer argued that, following the reform introduced by the Decree of 26 April 2022, Article R. 4624-31 of the French Labour Code only required a return-to-work medical examination after an absence of at least sixty days due to non-occupational illness or accident. According to the employer, the provisions of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, which referred to an absence of at least three weeks, merely reflected the previous state of the law and had become obsolete following the regulatory amendments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The French Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It recalled that Article 3.4 of the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that employees absent for at least three weeks due to non-occupational illness or accident must undergo a return-to-work medical examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court further held that \u201cthe minimum duration of absence due to non-occupational illness or accident after which the employer is required to organise a return-to-work medical examination is that set by the collective agreement provisions, notwithstanding any subsequent amendment to the regulatory provisions\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the fact that the Labour Code now sets the statutory threshold at sixty days was immaterial where the applicable collective agreement provided for a more favourable threshold for employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having found that the employee\u2019s sick leave had lasted forty-six days and that he had made himself available to return to work at the end of his absence, the Court upheld the lower court\u2019s finding that the employer was under an obligation to arrange a return-to-work medical examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practical implications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through this decision, the French Supreme Court reaffirmed the binding effect of collective bargaining provisions that are more favourable to employees in matters relating to occupational health monitoring following sick leave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ruling is of particular relevance to collective bargaining agreements that have not been updated following regulatory reforms increasing the statutory absence thresholds triggering mandatory return-to-work medical examinations. The mere fact that statutory provisions have subsequently changed is insufficient to disapply existing collective agreement provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practical terms, the decision underlines the importance for employers and HR teams of carefully reviewing the collective bargaining agreements applicable within their sector in order to identify obligations that may remain more favourable to employees than those set out in the Labour Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

French Supreme Court, 6 May 2026, No. 24-13.599<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a ruling dated 6 May 2026 (French Supreme Court, 6 May 2026, No. 24-13.599), the French Supreme Court held that the minimum period of absence due to non-occupational illness triggering a mandatory return-to-work medical examination may validly derive from more favourable provisions contained in a collective bargaining agreement, notwithstanding subsequent amendments to the applicable […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":41706,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[152],"class_list":["post-41705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-non-classifiee","tag-mgg-academy"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41705","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41705"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41705\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41709,"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41705\/revisions\/41709"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mgglegal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}