A resignation must reflect a clear and unequivocal intention to end the contract. Where an employee later challenges their resignation and asks for it to be reclassified as a dismissal without grounds, the case law allows this on two cumulative conditions : a dispute with the employer must have predated or been contemporaneous with the resignation, and the employee must have acted within a reasonable time. If the reclassification succeeds and the grievances are serious enough, the resignation produces the effects of a dismissal without real and serious cause ; otherwise, it remains a resignation.
In this case, an employee of a plumbing and ventilation design business had resigned in April 2018. In August 2018, she wrote to her employer recalling the context of her resignation, noting that she had not received her end-of-contract documents and pointing to a highly conflictual atmosphere and an unmanageable workload. She brought her claim before the labour court in March 2019.
The Court of Cassation approved the Court of Appeal’s decision to reclassify the resignation as a constructive dismissal. The August 2018 letter showed that she had voiced her disagreement, and numerous emails predating the resignation evidenced strained relations and abnormal working conditions. The earlier dispute being established, and the employee having expressed her disagreement from August 2018, her challenge – four months after her resignation – was made within a reasonable time.
The decision is a useful reminder that the reasonableness of the delay is never assessed in the abstract, but in context. Faced with an ambiguous resignation, employers are well advised to invite the employee to confirm their intention in writing, to reply to any later correspondence and to keep a record of the exchanges.
