Article L6321-1 of the Labor Code imposes two distinct obligations on every employer regarding training: ensuring the adaptation of employees to their job and ensuring the maintenance of their ability to hold a job. These two aspects are not to be confused and do not carry the same legal consequences.
Job Adaptation and Employment Maintenance: Two Obligations to Distinguish
The first obligation concerns job adaptation. It is triggered upon hiring and then with each modification of the position: new software, process changes, departmental reorganization. The employer must provide the necessary training for the employee to fulfill their duties under current conditions.
Read also : Everything You Need to Know About the Conditions for Buying Agricultural Land in France
The second obligation pertains to maintaining the ability to hold a job. It has a forward-looking dimension, as it involves anticipating the evolution of jobs, technologies, and organizations. Specifically, an employer who knows that their sector is shifting to a digital tool cannot wait for production to train their teams.
Understanding the obligation of professional training according to the Labor Code requires grasping this distinction, as courts apply it precisely when a dispute arises.
You may also like : Everything You Need to Know About the Versions and Engines of the Peugeot 208: Complete Guide
Skills Development Plan: The Employer’s Concrete Tool
The skills development plan has replaced the former training plan since the law of September 5, 2018, on the freedom to choose one’s professional future. This plan encompasses all training actions decided by the company for the benefit of its employees.
There is no imposed regulatory format. The employer lists mandatory training (safety, certifications, regulatory qualifications) and non-mandatory training aimed at skills development. This distinction is crucial for the applicable legal framework.
- Mandatory training (workplace safety, electrical qualifications, CACES, etc.) takes place during working hours and results in full salary maintenance.
- Job adaptation training follows the same regime: actual working time, salary maintained.
- Skills development actions that go beyond strict adaptation may, under certain conditions and with the employee’s agreement, take place partially outside working hours.
A structured plan also allows the employer to prove, in case of litigation, that they have fulfilled their obligations. The complete absence of a plan does not constitute an offense in itself, but it significantly weakens the company’s position before labor courts.
Professional Interview: The Mandatory Meeting Every Two Years
The professional interview, provided for in Article L6315-1 of the Labor Code, must take place every two years with each employee. It does not focus on evaluating results (that is the role of the annual evaluation interview, which remains optional), but on professional development perspectives and training needs.
Every six years, a summary assessment must verify that the employee has indeed benefited from the scheduled interviews and at least one training action. For companies with fifty or more employees, failure to comply with this obligation results in a corrective contribution to the affected employee’s CPF.
Topics to Address in the Interview
- The employee’s training wishes and the available support systems (CPF, VAE, retraining).
- The foreseeable changes in the position or job and the skills to be acquired.
- The follow-up actions from previous interviews, particularly the training actually undertaken.
The professional interview is the cornerstone of follow-up. Without traceability of these meetings, the employer exposes themselves to a corrective contribution and an increased risk of litigation.
Proof of Harm: What Recent Case Law Has Changed
The Court of Cassation has tightened the conditions for compensating employees in cases of employer failure to fulfill their training obligations. Non-compliance with this obligation no longer automatically entitles one to damages.
Employees must now concretely prove the harm suffered: loss of skills, difficulty adapting to a new position, measurable degradation of employability. This evidentiary requirement changes the game for both parties.
Consequences for the Employer
This turnaround does not exempt the company from training its employees. In case of dismissal, the total absence of training remains a factor examined by judges to assess the reality and seriousness of the reason. An employee dismissed for professional inadequacy while having received no adaptation training has a strong argument to contest the termination.
Consequences for the Employee
An employee seeking compensation must build a case: letters requesting training that went unanswered, comparisons between required skills and those acquired, documented refusals for advancement. The mere absence of training is no longer sufficient to justify a compensation claim.
Workplace Safety Training: The Non-Negotiable Aspect
Among all training obligations, the one related to workplace safety stands out due to its reinforced nature. The employer must organize information and training actions adapted to the professional risks identified in the single risk assessment document (DUERP).
This training primarily targets newly hired employees, those changing positions or techniques, and employees returning to work after a break of at least twenty-one days when requested by the occupational physician. Refusal or neglect of this training exposes the employer to inexcusable fault in the event of a workplace accident, with severe financial consequences (increased pension, additional compensation).
Safety training is not merely a documentary formality. It must be effective, tailored to the actual position, and renewed whenever working conditions change. A simple welcome booklet handed out without explanation does not meet this requirement.
The obligation of professional training according to the Labor Code thus articulates several mechanisms (skills development plan, professional interview, safety training) around the same principle: the employer finances and organizes, while the employee who suffers a shortcoming must now demonstrate the concrete effects to obtain compensation.