Estimated reading time (in minutes)

A trip abroad may be part of the employee’s usual activity, and therefore does not fall under the implementation of a mobility clause.

An employee of an international firm is dismissed for serious misconduct for refusing a trip abroad for a meeting. The employer relied on the contract of employment of the person concerned, which provided that he might be called upon to carry out assignments abroad, and recognized that the mobility of the employee in the performance of his duties constituted a substantial condition of the CONTRACT.
For the trial judges, the contract clause had to be analyzed as a mobility clause and, since it did not set a geographical limit, this mobility clause was void. Also the termination of the contract had to be analyzed as a dismissal without real and serious cause.
The Court of Cassation does not approve of this decision: for it, the simple observation that the travel refused by the employee was part of the usual framework of his activity as an international consultant was sufficient to justify the employer’s decision. It was not necessary in this case to inquire whether the clause in the contract was valid or not.

Lawyer Grégory DAMY 2022 Nice labor law