In a ruling dated June 3, 2026 (no. 25-11.673), the Social Chamber of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) provides a further illustration of the autonomy required to benefit from a fixed-day work agreement.

The Supreme Court states that "According to Article 4.1 of the extended agreement of June 22, 1999, concerning working hours, attached to the national collective bargaining agreement [Syntec], a fixed-day work agreement can only be applied to employees with broad autonomy, freedom, and independence in organizing and managing their working time to carry out the tasks assigned to them."

The ruling found that the employee had no freedom in organizing their work.

Consequently, he was not eligible for the annual work schedule agreement that had been applied to him.

1) Analysis.

According to Article L.3121-58 of the French Labor Code, annual work schedules are available to managers with a certain degree of autonomy and to employees whose working hours cannot be predetermined and who have genuine autonomy in organizing their work.

However, in this case, the trainer followed a schedule of interventions determined by his superiors in agreement with their clients.

He therefore did not have genuine freedom in organizing his work since he was bound by specific schedules that he did not determine himself.

Indeed, the Court of Appeal's ruling cites several indicators demonstrating the lack of autonomy:

• The training sessions were scheduled by the various line managers;

• The employee did not have access to the calendar dedicated to scheduling the training sessions;

• He was required to grant his manager access to his schedule so that the manager could enter training sessions;

• The dates and times of training days were determined by the sales department in agreement with clients;

• Outside of training days, he was required to be present in the office from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The employee's lack of autonomy and the absence of effective control over working hours rendered the fixed-day work agreement unenforceable against him, thus entitling him to claim back pay for overtime worked.

This ruling provides a further illustration of the autonomy criterion while remaining consistent with established case law.

Indeed, the Court of Cassation had already ruled in 2023, in a decision published in the Bulletin (Cass. soc. 25 Jan. 2023, no. 21-16.825), that a female manager who was not subject to the company's collective working hours could not be granted a fixed-day contract if she lacked the necessary autonomy and was required to be present at times determined by her employer.

In 2016, the Court of Cassation had also ruled that since "employees were subject to a restrictive schedule requiring their presence within the company at predetermined times," they did not have the necessary autonomy to benefit from a fixed-day contract (Cass. soc. 15 Dec. 2016, no. 15-17.568).

To read the full article, click on the link below.

https://www.village-justice.com/articles/salaries-consultants-formateurs-soumis-planning-impose-par-votre-employeur-pas,58406.html

Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)

CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)

e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com

www.chhum-avocats.fr

https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr

Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300

Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644

Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24

Sources :