THE CLEANING LADY DID NOT WORK IN HER EMPLOYERS' RESTAURANT BUT IN THEIR HOME

Undeclared work

Statement of facts and procedure :

Pursuant to a permanent employment contract (CDI) dated 5 November 2007 in the name of the restaurant "Le L", Mrs Alice C. F. was hired as a cleaning lady.

Considering that she had worked for the personal account of Mr Jean R. and Ms Brigitte D. wife R. and not for their various restaurants whose names appear on her successive employment contracts, Ms C. F. handed them her resignation in person on 9 November 2017.

On 16 January, through the intermediary of her counsel, she made it known that this resignation was in fact due to the fraudulent behaviour of her employers, who had declared her to be working for their restaurant when in fact she was working exclusively at their home.

She then appealed to the Paris labour tribunal.

In so doing, it sought a ruling that :

-his resignation shall have the same effect as a dismissal without real and serious cause

-. an order against Mr and Mrs R. to pay compensation for undeclared work and damages for non-material loss.

By judgment of 16 October 2018, the industrial tribunal dismissed all her claims.

In a statement dated 26 November, Mrs C. F. appealed against this decision.

Court of Appeal :

The various employment contracts for the employee, a cleaning lady, were drawn up in the name of the restaurants.

The latter justifies having actually worked at their home.

She produced an accommodation certificate signed by one of the spouses stating that she was living in a maid's room above their own flat, various administrative documents mentioning this address and a detailed certificate from another employee stating that she was working on site as a domestic employee and not in the restaurants. The author of this certificate stated that she herself had been paid by a restaurant owned by the directors, when in fact she was working at their daughter's home.

The employee also points out that :

-His letter of resignation was delivered personally to both spouses;

-These are listed as his employers;

-The letter refers to the collective agreement for employees of private employers and not that for hotels, cafés and restaurants.

She also states that the company did not deny these various statements when it acknowledged her resignation.

In addition, the managers do not prove that the employee had actually worked 39 hours a week for more than ten years in their various restaurants. 

The existence of an employment relationship between the employee and the couple is therefore proven.

Solution chosen:

The fact that a couple of directors of a company managing restaurants deliberately set up a fictitious employment contract with one of their restaurants in order not to declare the real activity of the employee, a cleaning lady, working in their home, demonstrates the intentional nature of the concealed work..

The two spouses, who were the employee's real employers, did not proceed with the pre-employment declaration of their employee. The facts were thus proven.

The employee is therefore entitled to a lump-sum payment of EUR 16,199.

Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 6, Chamber 4, 14 April 2021, RG no. 18/13384