Amazon to Contest COVID-19 Ruling in France's Highest Court
The company will ask the Court of Cassation to rule on an appeals court order to scale back its business while it consults with workers over safety, or face heavy fines.
May 08, 2020 at 06:37 AM
4 minute read
Credit: Shutterstock.com
Amazon France will take its case over worker health and safety related to COVID-19 to France's highest court.
The company announced late Thursday that it would ask the Court of Cassation to rule on an appeals court order that Amazon should deliver only essential items until it had completed an assessment of the risks linked to the novel coronavirus in consultation with workers' unions, or face heavy fines.
"The reasons for this choice will be directly presented by the company to the courts and to the parties concerned," Amazon France said in a statement.
Judith Krivine, who represents the lawsuit's original plaintiff, the French union group Solidaires, told Law.com International that she thought Amazon's intention to escalate to the Court of Cassation was political, not legal.
"The Court of Cassation rules on questions of law, and whether it was properly applied," Krivine, a partner at the French employment law boutique Dellien & Associés, said Friday. "It does not rule on questions of fact. And the Court of Appeal ruling is based on French labor law."
Amazon also said it wanted to keep its six distribution centers in France closed and its 10,000 warehouse employees at home on full salary until May 13 while it continued consultation and safety checks.
The company was to present its proposal Friday to a committee of its works council, a joint body representing management and workers.
The Versailles Court of Appeal ruled on April 24 that Amazon needed to conduct a "real assessment" of the risks linked to the new coronavirus, confirming a decision 10 days earlier by a lower court in Nanterre, outside Paris.
The appeals court also clarified and expanded the list of products that Amazon can continue to deliver pending the safety assessment and set a penalty of 100,000 euros per infraction. The lower court had imposed a fine of 1 million euros per day.
Amazon closed its distribution centers and sent workers home on April 16 after the lower court ruling, citing the size of the fine.
"The penalty, as specified by the court of appeal, obliges us to consider continuing the suspension of activity of our French distribution centers until Wednesday, May 13 inclusive," Amazon France said in a statement late Thursday.
"At the same time, we are continuing to work with our social partners and to assess the best way to operate our distribution centers in the light of the court's decision," the statement said.
The French government last week rejected the company's request for partial unemployment, a COVID-19 crisis measure for distressed employers that covers 80% of salary. The Labor Ministry said that Amazon France did not qualify for the aid because the company chose to send employees home in reaction to the court-ordered fines, not because of a downturn in business.
U.S.-based Amazon is by far the largest e-commerce site in France, accounting for 22% of all online purchases made in France last year, according to Kantar, a market research company.
Solidaires' original lawsuit asserted that increased demand for nonessential consumer items, such as toys and craft kits, during the coronavirus lockdown had led to unsafe conditions at Amazon warehouses, including crowding and lax enforcement of hygiene guidelines.
Amazon has argued that it took precautions to protect worker safety and communicated them to employees.
The appeals court rebuked Amazon for forging ahead with measures without consulting with workers or outside experts.
By not adopting a "multidisciplinary approach and close consultation with employees, the most important players in their health and safety," Amazon was not showing "its desire to carry out a quality risk assessment to meet the challenges of a pandemic," according to the ruling.
"French labor law is clear on the obligation to consult," Krivine of Dellien & Associés said.
"I have not seen Amazon's argument, but by saying it is going to the higher court, it looks like Amazon wants to continue the war instead of really negotiating with workers," she said.
Lawyers representing Amazon France could not be reached immediately for comment.
Related Stories:
Amazon France Loses Appeal Over Worker Safety From COVID-19
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Carey Abogados’ Senior Partner Becomes New Head of IBA, First Chilean to Assume Role of President
Goodwin Hires Quinn Emanuel Antitrust Partner to Launch Brussels Office
3 minute read
Claus von Wobeser: Mexico's ‘Godfather of Arbitration’ Becomes Firm’s Honorary Chair
Jenner & Block Expands London Team with Baker McKenzie Hire to Lead New Practice Area
2 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
