The "Gravediggers" are still active in nursing homes: the example of the Villa d'Avril

Summer 2024. Saint-Avold, Moselle. In a 76-bed nursing home called Villa d'Avril (Colisée group, ^4th largest player in the sector), ^Ms. L., a nursing assistant and recent candidate in the professional elections, is about to be made redundant.

Her fault? Having repeatedly denounced the working conditions imposed on her and her colleagues, who (they are mostly women) operate in a context of chronic understaffing, to the point that the health and dignity of the residents are affected. Since July, ^Ms. L. has been outspoken: "This morning, I returned to my post (...) and I noticed that no resident had been changed at night. (They) are therefore soiled from head to toe, freezing. This negligence forces me to do double duty (...). It is difficult for me to continue working in such conditions."

Rather than address this alarming situation, and only eight days after her application, the employer called her in for an interview with a view to dismissal. " I agree that the only solution, (...) is to remove the contagious nucleus ," the director of the nursing home wrote to her regional manager. ^Ms. L., dismissed on September 3, cannot therefore participate in the elections, scheduled for the 24th. Aware of having fired her without respecting her protected status (not only for staff representatives, but also for election candidates), the establishment agreed to reinstate the employee, but three days after the elections, on September 27...

Against all odds, on October 2nd, the same thing happened again: ^Ms. L. was summoned to a new preliminary interview. By decision of December 18th, the labor inspectorate, which had received the dismissal request, opposed it, considering that none of the accusations made against the employee had been substantiated. Phew!

But the nursing home then refused to reinstate her, on the (ineffective) pretext that an appeal had been filed against the inspection decision. She took the matter to the industrial tribunal in January. The employer then changed tack: it reinstated the employee only to immediately transfer her to another facility in Giraumont, near Metz, more than 80 kilometers from her home, even though there was no mobility clause in her contract.

Stop, or more? Placed on sick leave since February 7, ^Ms. L. was once again subject to dismissal proceedings on March 4, just after the expiry of her protection period, this time for " repeated absences disrupting the operation of the company "...

Finally, the industrial tribunal judges will put an end to this vast farce and annul this triple dismissal ¹ , holding that the employer's behaviour constitutes a " manifestly unlawful disturbance " justifying the reinstatement of ^Ms L. within the Villa d'avril.