We only learned this Thursday evening (06/01) by an AFP dispatch which nevertheless underlines that the decision had been rendered in mid-December by the Labor Council of Châteauroux. The 242 former employees of the Halle in Issoudun and the opposing party are referred to the departing judge at a later date and still unknown.
Discretionary decision
A decision taken following a hearing on October 12. 242 former employees had argued, through their lawyer, of the double sentence imposed on them. First their dismissal in the summer of 2020 following the cessation of their business and then the fact of having learned that they had been exposed, unwittingly and sometimes for years, to asbestos in their workplace. Hence the demand for global compensation for 3 million euros for anxiety damage (i.e. amounts ranging from 7,500 to 20,000 euros per employee depending on seniority). The judgment was initially put under advisement on Friday, January 7, but in the meantime, the prudhommaux advisers, who were unable to decide, decided to dismiss ” at a subsequent hearing, to be held under the chairmanship of the departing judge“. These are the terms that appear on a report dated December 15 last consulted by AFP. The date of this new hearing is not yet known. The surprise is considerable, yesterday, the lawyer for the employees Me Guiet, whom we contacted, did not tell us that he was aware of this postponement.
Flaws in the complainant’s files?
“The fact that the matter is referred to the tie-breaker shows that things are not as obvious as they can sometimes seem.“, commented for his part the defender of the AGS (Association for the management of the Guarantee scheme for employee claims), Me Franck Morel, to AFP.
The AGS, more commonly known as the wage guarantee scheme, is in fact the body which intervenes in the event of business failures and which would therefore be responsible for paying compensation in the event of a conviction. During the hearing the lawyer for AGS and that of the judicial representative of La Halle had pointed out the shortcomings in the constitution of the files of the plaintiffs.
With a few exceptions, the latter did not produce a medical certificate justifying their anxiety, or even proof that they were working well in the dangerous building.
By France Bleu Berry With AFP