{"id":26772,"date":"2025-03-07T09:52:49","date_gmt":"2025-03-07T08:52:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/?p=26772"},"modified":"2025-03-07T09:52:51","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T08:52:51","slug":"rappel-sur-la-consultation-du-cse-dans-le-cadre-dune-procedure-pour-inaptitude-physique-et-impossibilite-de-reclassement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/rappel-sur-la-consultation-du-cse-dans-le-cadre-dune-procedure-pour-inaptitude-physique-et-impossibilite-de-reclassement\/","title":{"rendered":"Rappel sur la consultation du CSE dans le cadre d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure pour inaptitude physique et impossibilit\u00e9 de reclassement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Par un arr\u00eat rendu le 5 mars 2025 <em>(Cass. soc., 5 mars 2025, n\u00b023-13802<\/em>), la Cour de cassation est venue rappeler que l\u2019employeur devait proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la consultation du CSE avant la convocation \u00e0 entretien pr\u00e9alable du salari\u00e9, dans le cadre d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure de licenciement pour inaptitude physique et impossibilit\u00e9 de reclassement.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, apr\u00e8s un avis d\u2019inaptitude physique rendu par le m\u00e9decin du travail \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard d\u2019un salari\u00e9 victime d\u2019un accident du travail, l\u2019employeur a, en l\u2019absence de poste de reclassement disponible et compatible avec l\u2019\u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 du salari\u00e9, initi\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure de licenciement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de ce dernier, en proc\u00e9dant \u00e0 la consultation des d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9s du personnel (d\u00e9sormais le CSE) post\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 l\u2019envoi de la convocation \u00e0 entretien pr\u00e9alable.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Le salari\u00e9 a saisi le Conseil de prud\u2019hommes en contestation de son licenciement. Les juges du fond l\u2019ont d\u00e9bout\u00e9 de ses demandes.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Le salari\u00e9 a ainsi form\u00e9 un pourvoi en cassation en consid\u00e9rant que les juges du fond avaient m\u00e9connu les dispositions de l\u2019article L. 1226-10 du Code du travail, d\u00e8s lors qu\u2019il <em>\u00ab\u00a0avait \u00e9t\u00e9 convoqu\u00e9 le 17 mars 2017 \u00e0 un entretien pr\u00e9alable en vue d&rsquo;un licenciement qui s&rsquo;est tenu le 27 mars 2017\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, alors que les repr\u00e9sentants du personnel avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 <em>\u00ab\u00a0convoqu\u00e9s le 17 mars 2017 pour le 31 mars 2017<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb et qu\u2019ainsi la proc\u00e9dure de licenciement \u00e9tait irr\u00e9guli\u00e8re, eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 la consultation tardive des repr\u00e9sentants du personnel.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Le salari\u00e9, au soutien de son pourvoi, reprochait aux juges d\u2019appel d\u2019avoir consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que la consultation tardive des repr\u00e9sentants du personnelle effectu\u00e9e par l\u2019employeur \u00e9tait sans incidence, eu \u00e9gard \u00e0 l\u2019absence de poste de reclassement disponible.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>La Haute Juridiction censure l\u2019arr\u00eat des juges du fond en rappelant qu&rsquo;il\u00a0<em>\u00ab\u00a0appartenait \u00e0 l&#8217;employeur de consulter les d\u00e9l\u00e9gu\u00e9s du personnel sur les possibilit\u00e9s de reclassement avant d&rsquo;engager la proc\u00e9dure de licenciement\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>, de sorte que la proc\u00e9dure men\u00e9e \u00e9tait irr\u00e9guli\u00e8re, privant ainsi le licenciement de cause r\u00e9elle et s\u00e9rieuse.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>Cette d\u00e9cision, dans le prolongement de la jurisprudence, rappelle ainsi la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 imp\u00e9rative de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la consultation du CSE pr\u00e9alablement \u00e0 l\u2019engagement de la proc\u00e9dure de licenciement pour inaptitude physique, y compris dans l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se o\u00f9 aucun poste de reclassement n\u2019a pu \u00eatre identifi\u00e9.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.courdecassation.fr\/decision\/67c7f850d80e40890638ec7f?judilibre_juridiction=cc&#038;judilibre_chambre%5b%5d=soc&#038;previousdecisionpage=&#038;previousdecisionindex=&#038;nextdecisionpage=0&#038;nextdecisionindex=1\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.courdecassation.fr\/decision\/67c7f850d80e40890638ec7f?judilibre_juridiction=cc&#038;judilibre_chambre[]=soc&#038;previousdecisionpage=&#038;previousdecisionindex=&#038;nextdecisionpage=0&#038;nextdecisionindex=1<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Par un arr\u00eat rendu le 5 mars 2025 (Cass. soc., 5 mars 2025, n\u00b023-13802), la Cour de cassation est venue rappeler que l\u2019employeur devait proc\u00e9der \u00e0 la consultation du CSE avant la convocation \u00e0 entretien pr\u00e9alable du salari\u00e9, dans le cadre d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure de licenciement pour inaptitude physique et impossibilit\u00e9 de reclassement. En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, apr\u00e8s [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":26770,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_seopress_news_disabled":"","_seopress_video_disabled":"","_seopress_video":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas_manual":[],"_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable_all":"","_seopress_pro_rich_snippets_disable":[],"_seopress_pro_schemas":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualites-en-droit-social"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26772"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26772\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26774,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26772\/revisions\/26774"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26770"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.voltaire-avocats.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}