Mar 15 2012
Employment center sentenced to properly inform the unemployed
Unemployment insurance has been reminded by the Supreme Court the obligation to provide full information to job seekers, particularly in access to benefits. She has no room for error in this regard. Which should cause it to reorganize its procedures. Agency employment center in Nice
This is a decision that may have serious consequences for employment center to the edge of implosion. The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled on February 8 that judge as unemployment insurance has failed in its obligation to deliver a "comprehensive information" to a woman about jobless benefits she was entitled. This decision "at the expense of employment center a general duty of information for all job seekers," he told AFP Me Christelle Mathieu, confirming a report by France Bleu Nord. "Now the burden of proof shall be on the employment center," while far a job seeker who felt cheated had to prove its allegations, she said. "It will be the employment center to prove that he has informed the job seeker," she added.
An obligation to properly inform
Moreover, "the Supreme Court has said that employment center has an obligation to provide full information," said the lawyer. Brochures and flyers have indeed been declared inadequate by the courts. The question is will it involve in terms of organization for the employment center. "One can imagine that (…) it will be individual interviews with job applicants, but since depth interviews will need to define precisely what rights the job seeker", which is entitled to several benefits, Mr. Mathieu said. "When we have two possible allocations, employment center will guide the job seeker to one that is most advantageous to him," she said.
His client had requested a specific solidarity allowance (ASS) which was paid from 2004. But during 2005, she had learned "by chance", she could benefit from the retirement allowance equivalent (EAR), the more advantageous, according to his lawyer. She asked that the EAR, it could actually benefit since 2003, he be paid retroactively, as unemployment insurance refused him. She was then approached the court and obtained the High Court of Valenciennes, April 27, 2009, 14,774 euros in damages for the injury sustained, Mr. Mathieu. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Douai 16 June 2010.
Now, what will happen to employment center? Unions never fail to complain about a lack of resources and personnel and a degradation of services to job seekers, since the merger of the ANPE and UNEDIC. This lack of resources also derive worse working conditions for staff of employment center, whose workload has exploded and that no longer benefit from 1,800 additional posts in CSD granted when the crisis erupted.
Comments Off
