It is well known that there are daily job cuts in different company and state in public domains. However, it is not done the same way and at the same time. But before looking deeper into its details, one should learn more about its principles.
Contract terminations are usually done through contract termination letters. It occurs for economic reasons can be applied by the State under different conditions :
This measure shall never be applied for external motives to the service interest. It has to be justified by an economic issue.
The procedure is stated by the 97th article of the law 84-53 that was promulgated in January 84 concerning the territorial public function.
It may be defined with these conditions :
Through a deliberation that suppresses the employment
Through the justification of an economic issue
The state has to provide the folder with elements that may justify the job cut for the different reasons that were stated above. In that case, the legality of the job cut decision of a contract termination with a professional worker is admitted while a part time job as a secretary that was, amongst others, refused by the professional worker, to whom it was proposed, was also created by the same deliberation.
The termination of a contract shall be decided as a financial measure that was unavoidable, and from which the regional chamber of the accounts of Ile-de-France, in a notice on the financial situation of the state. The notice can indicate the necessity of the job cuts without suggestion that the authorities shall resort to such a procedure.
The deficit of important management of a municipal pool for example, can justify the contract termination of the lifeguard for economic reasons.
A job cut may occur, as we said, for economic reasons, whatever the state’s financial situation may be. Even if the economy is at its minimum, and even if the State has proceeded for other objectives and recruited new personnel at the same time when the occupied functions by the agents whose jobs were cut were applied by other agents in addition to their initial objectives.
The job cuts may only be partial and be compensated by the reduction of the monthly working time limit of the officials because of the financial issues that the State may face as the result of diminution of the professional tax income.
The illegality of the deliberations that were established to allow the termination of the contract of the official that occupies the job that was cut, in the first place.
These deliberations may get stained not only by power misappropriation. It goes for the whole folder, and particularly for the measures taken by the vice-president of the syndicate before the intervention as well as the conflictual decisions and the diminution of the attributed notice that went down from 18 to 8 during the few last years, that the job cut of the post of intercommoned syndicate director has had a defined motive, not to allow the syndicate to have more money and to create a new employment of direction that is more adapted to its needs, but also to swagger the petitioner against whom some accusations were pronounced.
On one hand, the State shall not produce any element in a way that establishes that the job cut was motivated by the interest of the service; while the affair reveals that the most important element of the deliberation was to allow the radiation of the officials of the one occupying that position and who was repeatedly sanctioned.
On the other hand, as soon as the job cut was decided for economic reasons, the circumstance that the official follows to the conditions of his contract termination is not enough to establish the fact that the municipal council deliberation had for a goal to avoid the launch of a disciplinary procedure to be engaged against him and so, become illegal.
If that obligation that steams from the article 97 of the law of 26 January 84 is not respected, the deliberation itself becomes illegal.
All the officials that are communal employment titular, specific employees included, have to benefit from the article 97 that steams from the law of the 26th January 84 that is connected to the support of the official whose job was cut. In that particular case, the Mayor has to launch the adequate procedure that was clarified and stated by this article and can no longer pronounce the termination of the official’s contract.
If the deliberation did not reach the prefecture, it is not executory and the Mayor cannot rush on the deliberation, causing the job cut to terminate the contract of the official who occupied that position.
If the unlicensed official was about to be granted tenure, the termination of his contract can happen, but only for professional insufficiency or for a disciplinary motive until the expiration of the option notice according to the same law of 1984. The economic issue cannot, in this particular case, be taken as a justification.