The Supreme Court has just recalled, in a ruling dated February 4 2015 (c Gunn / Poitiers Basket 86, 13-26.172 No), the prohibition of termination clauses in the contracts of fixed-term work of professional sportsmen.
Amendment containing an early termination clause, known as a termination clause, in a professional basketball player's employment contract (CDD)
In 2009, the Poitiers basketball club recruited an American player for a period of one sports season. This contract is subsequently extended for two more years.
In an addendum signed on September 1, 2010, the parties agree that "in the event of repeated and unjustified absences of the player during training, meetings, public relations operations, or even matches (more than three unjustified absences), the two parties agree on the possibility of canceling the second season of the contract, by sending a simple letter, before April 30, 2011. Similarly, the player has the option of choosing to terminate the contract at the end of the first season, by sending a simple letter before April 30 2011".
On April 28, 2011, the Poitiers club applied this clause and informed its employee that they were terminating their contractual relationship.
The player then goes to the labor tribunal to have his contract declared terminated at the initiative of his employer.
Early termination of the player's employment contract by the employing club
By a judgment of March 30, 2012, the Poitiers Labor Court considers that the early termination of the CDD is attributable to the Club.
The judges then condemn the Club to pay the player the sums of € 84.000 as damages and € 267 as a salary reminder. The club is appealing this judgment.
In a judgment of September 11, 2013, the Poitiers Court of Appeal set aside the referred judgment (except with regard to the reminder of salary).
It retains, in fact, that the breach of the contract by the employer is regular and therefore dismisses the employee of all his requests.
The judges specify that the amendment of September 1, 2010 "constitutes an amicable agreement in accordance with Article L. 1243-1 of the Labor Code, since it offers the option to each of the two parties, the employee and the employer, to terminate the employment contract before its term by fixing special conditions for the employer".
The fact that restrictive conditions for the implementation of this option weigh on the sole employer "does not characterize a prohibited cancellation clause allowing the latter only to terminate the contract in advance before the expiry of the term, since the option is also open to the employee, and this without reasons".
The player then appealed on points of law.
The prohibition of resolutive clauses in a CDD for a professional athlete
The Supreme Court first recalls that under Article L.1243-1 of the Labour Code, "Unless the parties agree, the fixed-term contract can only be terminated before the end of the term in the event of serious misconduct, force majeure or incapacity noted by the occupational physician and that it results from these that the employee cannot accept in advance the termination of the contract by the employer for reasons other than those provided for by this text".
Considering that the rider "constitutes an amicable agreement in accordance with Article L. 1243-1 of the Labor Code "And while the Court of Appeal"noted that the termination clause stipulated in the amendment allowed the employer to terminate the contract for reasons other than those provided for exhaustively by article L. 1243-1 of the labor code", the Court of Cassation considers that the Poitiers Court of Appeal violated the aforementioned article of the Labor Code.
The judgment is therefore quashed but only in that it says that the termination of the fixed-term contract by the employer is regular and that it rejects the player's claim for damages.
The parties are referred to the Bordeaux Court of Appeal.
On the same theme, see the following articles:
[20.06.2011]
