Do French labor laws allow for the firing of employees for scheduling disagreements? I'm doing research on the effect of highly restrictive working conditions on poverty. More specifically, I'm investigating how a number of low-skill, shift-work jobs in the United States, like fast food workers, retail employees, and cleaning staff, present frequent examples of workers being forced to work unusual hours and strange but not necessarily illegal working conditions under threat of firing. I've found numerous examples of employees of small restaurants, large and small retail, petrol station employees, and other shift work being hired on reasonable hours and working conditions, and then gradually being shifted to very inconvenient hours and threatened with working those hours or losing their positions. One man working as a line cook was scheduled to work four times a week, Mondays at night, Thursdays at night, Fridays during the day, and Saturdays during the day even though he specifically informed his employer he could not work on Saturdays as he had another job then. At risk of losing his job, he said he could possibly work every other Saturday, and was at once rescheduled for every other Saturday until the end of the shift schedule. In the coming weeks, the missing Saturdays were added to the schedule, and he now works every Saturday against his will. Because there are no obvious labor laws being broken, and the legal system is often financially inaccessible to the working-class employees of such businesses, this is rampant among certain American industries. My research now brings me to evaluating the laws that allow such conditions to flourish in the US, and I'm trying to decipher the equivalent laws in France as a comparison, which my research so far suggests that once hired, employees in France are significantly more difficult to remove than their contemporaries in the US. Do labor laws in France allow for the removal of employees because of scheduling inconsistencies, or indeed non-behavioral grievances on the part of employees?
Under French law, in order to be valid, a dismissal must be based on a real and serious cause which must be exact, precise, objective and of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the dismissal. This requirement applies to any type of dismissal regardless of the age / position / length of service of the employee and the headcount of the company. https://www.globalworkplaceinsider.com/2013/07/unfair-dismissal-in-france/ The conduct that you discuss would only be lawful if the original job ceased to exist i.e. the change in hours was general and another employee did not backfill those shifts.
You can always complain to the county. It is not obvious from your description that you have a legal case. One reading of the circumstances is that you did not have a job offer, you went there on the assumption that you might get an official offer after being "oriented" and interviewed. The interview did not go well, so they did not give you the job. Time and travel expenses are often borne by the job candidate. The alternative interpretation is that you had an actual job offer, and you traveled to the site as part of your employment (involving some training). In that first session, things went bad, and you got fired. If that is the case, then (a) you would be owed wages for that day and (b) there is a slim chance that the firing was not legal (there could be restrictions on firing employees in government jobs, in whatever jurisdiction this is). Your attorney will guide you (after you giving a more detailed explanation of the circumstances) in understanding whether you were fired, or not hired.
This is illegal, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, assuming you are not an &quot;exempt&quot; employee, which is primarily a salaried employee (your pay isn't based on how many hours you work). There are details about the complaint process here. It is useful to know that retaliation against an employee filing a legal complaint is also illegal.
I found a mention of this issue here, where the case Rhonda Eddy v. Ingenesis was cited. Eddy worked from home in West Virginia, but had signed her contract with a company headquartered in Texas. The link is the decision of The State of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, namely, that the Circuit Court did not have the authority to hear Eddy's petition against her employer because she was out of the Circuit Court's jurisdiction. The circuit court found that it did not have personal jurisdiction over respondent under West Virginia’s personal jurisdiction statutes, and that respondent did not have sufficient minimum contacts with West Virginia to satisfy federal due process considerations. The circuit court also found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner’s WPCA claim because petitioner’s employment contract contained a valid choice of law clause that mandated Texas law would govern any dispute between the parties. Emphasis mine. It all depends on stipulations made in the employment contract. This (in the United Kingdom) states 4. Place of Work Allows the employer to specify the location where the employee will work. However, it also allows for the employer to specify any other location in the future. This gives the employer much greater flexibility. That would seem to indicate that (at least in the U.K.) the place is specified in the contract.
There are two kinds of evidence for discrimination. The primary evidence is direct, that is, statements by an employer, for example "We need to make sure not to hire a ___ for this position". The act of hiring a person that has a certain demographic property is never evidence for discrimination, because discrimination law treats all races and religions (etc) the same, so hiring a European is not intrinsically discriminatory, nor is hiring an African or Asian. Discrimination is also not defined in terms of the sameness or difference of an employee and a supervisor. Another possibility w.r.t. a discrimination claim is demonstrating a discriminatory pattern. However, the law does not demand exact proportional representation of all protected demographic classes. It is possible that certain circumstances would be compelling enough that illegal discrimination could be established, but this would require showing a pattern, and would not be useful in an individual action. There is no law requiring employers to be up-front about hiring decisions. There is also no law requiring posting a job (I assume this is not a government job), and no law requiring consideration of more than on candidate. It might be contrary to company policy. This is not murky from a legal perspective, even if it is scummy from an HR perspective.
The real question isn't whether there is a law, but whether you want to keep your job. If you want to do something that you believe will affect your company negatively, and you ask whether it's legal or not, the question alone should show you it's a bad idea. And another question is whether you can be sued, and what it will cost you even if you can win a case, and the answers to that are "yes" and "a lot".
At-will employers can fire you for almost any reason or no reason at all, aside from a few protected reasons for termination (defined by things like gender, race, religion, disability, etc.). &quot;Employees who want to work remotely from another country&quot; is not a protected class of individuals, so the company could almost certainly fire you for this with no repercussions whatsoever. Whether they will or not is an different question that's entirely dependent on your specific situation, but in general, US at-will employers have a very wide latitude to &quot;tell you no&quot; by simply firing you. All you can do is ask your manager. If they say no, then the answer is no. They do not require any &quot;grounds&quot; or justification for their decision.
If you were in the office, and ready to take instructions what to do from your manager, then you were legally working and need to be paid. There's plenty of things you can do in an office without electricity unless it's too dark. If the manager didn't ask you to do anything, it's the company's problem, not yours. If you took the opportunity to leave for 90 minutes to do your weekly shopping, then you shouldn't get paid.