Par un arr\u00eat en date du 10 d\u00e9cembre 2014 (Cass. soc. 10 d\u00e9cembre 2014 n\u00b0 13-22.134 – n\u00b0 2298 FS-PB), la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation admet qu\u2019un salari\u00e9 qui n’a pas obtenu le montant minimal de l’indemnit\u00e9 sp\u00e9cifique de rupture conventionnelle puisse saisir le juge d’une demande en paiement d’un compl\u00e9ment d’indemnit\u00e9, sans \u00eatre tenu d’agir en nullit\u00e9 de la convention.<\/p>\n
La question qui se pose est de savoir si un salari\u00e9, constatant que le montant de l’indemnit\u00e9 sp\u00e9cifique de rupture conventionnelle qu’il a per\u00e7u est inf\u00e9rieur au montant minimum pr\u00e9vu par l\u2019article L 1237-13 du Code du travail, doit agir en nullit\u00e9 de la convention ou r\u00e9clamer au juge le compl\u00e9ment d’indemnit\u00e9 correspondant<\/p>\n
Dans cet arr\u00eat, la chambre sociale censure l\u2019arr\u00eat de Cour d\u2019appel qui avait d\u00e9bout\u00e9 le salari\u00e9 de sa demande au motif qu\u2019il n\u2019avait pas agi en nullit\u00e9 de la convention et admet que l\u2019absence d\u2019action en nullit\u00e9 de la rupture conventionnelle n\u2019interdit pas \u00e0 un salari\u00e9 d\u2019exiger le respect par l\u2019employeur du montant minimal pr\u00e9vu par l\u2019article L 1237-13 du Code du travail<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Par un arr\u00eat en date du 10 d\u00e9cembre 2014 (Cass. soc. 10 d\u00e9cembre 2014 n\u00b0 13-22.134 – n\u00b0 2298 FS-PB), la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation admet qu\u2019un salari\u00e9 qui n’a pas obtenu le montant minimal de l’indemnit\u00e9 sp\u00e9cifique de rupture conventionnelle puisse saisir le juge d’une demande en paiement d’un compl\u00e9ment d’indemnit\u00e9, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":284,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_angie_page":false,"page_builder":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"annee":[65],"expertise":[30],"class_list":["post-1307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-le-cabinet","annee-65","expertise-social"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1307"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1307\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1963,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1307\/revisions\/1963"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1307"},{"taxonomy":"annee","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/annee?post=1307"},{"taxonomy":"expertise","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wan-avocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/expertise?post=1307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}