Modification of the employment contract
Does silence mean consent?
He claimed that this change had altered his working conditions and caused his incapacity.
The employee therefore claimed damages for the alleged wrongful modification of his employment contract and its termination, which he considered to be unfair.
In its ruling, the court first recalled the well-established principle that:
a modification to an employment contract relating to an essential element of the contract requires the employee's consent.
The court specified that this consent does not have to take a particular form, as long as its existence is clear and precise.
In this particular case, the judges noted that:
- The employee was asked to perform new duties which substantially altered his previous role.
- The employee contested this change more than a year after it was implemented.
In doing so, they considered that :
The fact that the employee did not contest the change constituted consent to the substantial modification of his employment contract.
Consequently, the employee's claims for damages were dismissed in their entirety and he was ordered to pay his employer's legal costs.
This decision places the reality of the duties at the center of the debate and punishes unscrupulous parties who seek to exploit a situation they themselves have accepted.
