The Sadef company which operates the network of stores Mr

In 1999, debates that preceded the Act on 19 January 2000, the situation of managers Aubry was at the centre discussions. Business renâclaient to the idea of having to return in the mold of the 35-hour management of a certain level and that they felt correctly otherwise highly paid. The belief in the validity of the "package all schedules" was solidly anchored despite the convictions of judges, effectively relayed by labour inspectors.

Finally, Parliament cut the PEAR in two but three: category 1, the "integrated" so-called frameworks, those with the better their name because they frame a team which they marry schedules. These are subject to common law and calculated their time to work on time. Category 2, what is called the frames "in mission", which have a large autonomy in the Organization of their work time: this is typically the case of workers or the business yet. This is category is subject to the existence of a collective agreement, the calculation of working time according to an annual package evaluated in hours or days.

At the time, the collective agreement could go beyond a 217 days package which, because of the day of solidarity, was brought to 218. Question to the collective agreement of up to 235 days but this is pure theory: it is unclear to what suicidal Union that will venture to sign such an agreement, thereby depriving holidays frameworks.

I turn to category 3, that of senior management, which has, can imagine, the favour of patterns because the Executive is simply not subject to the rules governing the duration of the work. At the most can claim the application of the law on paid leave. With the Executive, businesses found their dear "package all schedules", they can simply say to those who complain: "my dear, you are paid for it! Unlike the establishment of a package-days, no need to negotiate: the list of executives is established unilaterally by the employer.

Mexican army

The temptation is great to create real Mexican armies, giving a large number of frames the quality of "leader". There is a small risk, because the framework is not subject to the rules of working time, it can become uncontrollable, but in the majority of cases, companies are winning.

Only this is: in the spirit of the legislature, Executive status should be reserved for a very low number of people. According to article l. 3111-2 of the Labour Code, four conditions must be met simultaneously. Must be running the business, have important responsibilities involving great independence in the organisation of working time, be empowered to make decisions largely autonomously and collect one of the highest remuneration of the company.

The Sadef company, which operates the network of stores Mr. Bricolage, thought well make the status of Executive in all of its directors. In 2005, she dismissed one of them and it took the opportunity to challenge his status as leader and claim an important reminder of additional hours and toil. The Sadef defending pointing out that he had the best paid his establishing employee and that it had autonomy of decision as a store manager. But these assertions are not resistant to the examination of the facts. First, with regard to the salary, the Executive must be part of the higher remuneration company and not the institution. On autonomy, it will judge the ability to hire the staff outside any directive came from above and to implement a trade policy that it has self set, which was not the case of a store manager in this society (Cass. Soc. 18 June 2008, n 07 - 40 427).

The reverse demonstration is made by a judgment of July 3, 2008 (No. 07 - 40 213) where the Executive has recognized an investment Director of the wider responsibilities and receiving the highest salary for the undertaking, even if it was without common measure with the CEO.