THE ECO SCAN – The arguments raised by the FO boss to challenge the substance of the consultation procedure with the social partners on labor law could be partially based. The risk that the text be retoqué defect of form by the Constitutional Council is not excluded
Who is right. Jean-Claude Mailly which threatens to complain because the consultation procedure on labor law was violated? Or Myriam El Khomri, who spoke Tuesday morning on LCI a “false debate” exhuming the opinion of the State Council said that the procedure had been complied with? The answer to this question is not trivial because if the Constitutional Council gives ultimately due to boss FO-if indeed it was he posée- is any law that could fall for want of form.
El Khomri never intended for trading on the reform of the Labour Code
at first glance, the analysis of Jean -Claude Mailly is concrete. No guidance document has actually been sent to the social partners to negotiations on the reform of the labor code, as has been the case since the beginning of the five-year term on the modernization of social dialogue in business (2014) or the labor market (2012). Except that the government never planned to trading on the subject. As Manuel Valls Myriam El Khomri have always said that the Executive prepare a draft law in consultation with the social partners. But not that they would ask them to negotiate an agreement. Nuance …
Besides the Larcher law, which Jean-Claude Mailly refers in his letter, does not require the Executive to launch negotiations on an amendment of the Labour Code, not do that without the social partners have been, in one way or another, express themselves and have their say. It even appears that the parties have orally informed the Minister of Labour, in the social conference last fall, they did not want to negotiate such a reform. And for good reason: in both camps, was well aware of the impossibility of reaching agreement
The consultation then took place.. A fall on the conclusions of Combrexelle report first, which served as the basis and reference to the government bill -the social partners have been received with great pomp repeatedly Matignon and rue de Grenelle to express their view- then at the beginning of the year with those of the Badinter commission to establish the fundamental principles of law of Labour. Apart from Article 30 of redundancies, unions and employers have thus had ample opportunity to comment on all or part of the provisions that are found today in the bill. Or at least the general philosophy of the text. Everyone could indicate its red and green lines. The land has been largely marked upstream.
The State Council has approved the procedure
The social partners then have received after the leak to the press of the draft law by mid-February, at Matignon and rue de Grenelle to say all evil, and the little good they thought the text. The version that was finally submitted by the Cabinet on March 24 also takes account of their remarks. So much so that it integrates several applications of the CFDT which is then grown from an opponent to support the bill. It is therefore, in essence, wrong to excuse today that the consultation was not carried out.
But where Jean-Claude Mailly perhaps a point, is that the Government seems rushed and burned the steps by sending, before presenting them in entirety, the PreProject law for review to the State Council. And only then because of the revolt that manifested itself, a broad consultation was held and that the text was amended and presented with 15 days behind the original schedule, consultancy of Ministers. The State Council has validated the method–which was even then mandated to formulate a review of the changes made to the text. Everything will therefore depend on the interpretation that the Constitutional Council will, if ever the question is asked. Suspense …