INSTITUTIONAL MORAL HARASSMENT

AT FRANCE TELECOM

They were on trial for institutional harassment which had led several employees to suicide.

The former CEO of France Telecom Didier Lombard was sentenced, this Friday, December 20, by the Paris criminal court to one year in prison, including four months in prison and a fine of € 15,000. Louis-Pierre Wenès (ex-number 2) and Olivier Barberot (ex-HRD) received the same sentence.

Four other executives, territorial and HR managers, were found guilty of "complicity in moral harassment". They received four months suspended prison sentence and 5,000 € fine.

The company, renamed Orange in 2013, was fined € 75,000. These are the maximum sentences and they comply with the requisitions.

Concept of institutional harassment

This verdict closes a long trial of three months, from May to July, during which the various parties tried to shed light on the managerial practices in force within the French historic operator at the end of the 2000s which had for effect, according to the prosecution, to destabilize many employees, some going as far as committing suicide. The court thus brought into case law the notion of "institutional", "systemic" moral harassment, that is to say being the fruit of a corporate strategy "aimed at destabilizing employees, creating an anxiety-provoking climate and having had for object and effect a deterioration of working conditions ”.

An “immense industrial accident organized by the employer”

The case goes back ten years: France Telecom made the headlines of the media because of suicides among its employees

In July 2009, Michel Deparis, a Marseille technician put an end to his life by criticizing in a letter "management by terror". “I commit suicide because of France Telecom. It's the only cause, ”he wrote.

Two months later, a first complaint was lodged by the South union, followed by others, and a damning report from the labor inspectorate.

The court examined in detail the cases of thirty-nine employees: nineteen committed suicide, twelve attempted it, and eight suffered from depression or from work stoppage.

At the helm, testimonies have succeeded one another, giving a precise idea of ​​the work that causes employees to sink into depression. We were talking about forced functional or geographic transfers, reductions in pay, repeated emails encouraging people to leave, etc. In 2006, Didier Lombard told executives that departures had to be done “through the window or through the door”.

The lawyer for the civil party spoke of a “huge industrial accident organized by the employer”.

This trial focused in particular on the 2007-2010 period, and the "NExT" and "Act" plans which aimed to transform France Telecom in three years, with in particular the objective of 22,000 departures and 10,000 mobility. The company had more than 100,000 employees, around a hundred different trades, spread over nearly 23,000 sites.

Institutional moral harassment

"The means chosen to reach the target of 22,000 departures in three years were prohibited," said the court, recalling that it is necessary "to reconcile the time and requirements of the transformation of the company with the pace of business." 'adaptation of the agents which ensure the success of this transformation'. It was a downsizing "forced march"; the voluntary departure was only a "simple display", according to the court. The tone of the management "is given: it will be that of urgency, acceleration, the primacy of departures from the company, willingly or by force."

For the first time, this Friday, the criminal judge ruled on a question apparently far from its bases: the correctional court of Paris said that the company policy led by France Telecom between 2007 and 2010 was constitutive of moral harassment on all of its 120,000 employees at the material time. The court thus brought into case law the notion of "institutional", "systemic" moral harassment, that is to say being the fruit of a corporate strategy "aimed at destabilizing employees, creating an anxiety-provoking climate and having had for object and effect a deterioration of working conditions ”.

If the company announced that it would not appeal in the event of conviction and Orange announced a procedure of compensation of possible victims, its former CEO Didier Lombard on the other hand decided to appeal.

Friday's judgment is "a great victory" and "a clear recognition of the damage suffered", reacted Patrick Ackermann, of the SUD union

Jean-Paul Teissonnière, lawyer for SUD, welcomed "a turning point in criminal labor law on the issue of institutional harassment and toxic management".