The famous Lebanese catering
NOUR ( http://www.noura.com/ ) refuses to take on the employees of the restoration of the IMA because according to him, the conditions of application of Article L. 122-12 of the Labor Code are not met in this case because there is no continuation of an economic entity retaining its identity and whose work is continued or resumed.
For this he cites the following arguments:
- He was not aware of employees at his arrival.
We will have to explain to us as the sign has been involved in a tender indicating the existence of 35 employees as if they did not exist (given that the social issue is a given incompressible tender)? Also difficult to believe that Nour was unaware when he arrived there were employees on site, whereas they were present every day on the front of the IMA for their rights and the resumption of their work ?
- The room contained no material.
A bailiff carried out at the request of the Arab World Institute shows otherwise, it contains a list of all the hardware on site at the time of arrival of the new dealership.
-Finally, NOUR justify non-application of Article L.122-12 by the fact that its production methods are different.
In counsel's Catering, "(...) the previous operator exercised a catering business and as such, he produced, manufactured and manufactured the dishes on the spot. NOUR company (...) has a central kitchen, which is responsible for manufacture, make and deliver to restaurants all the group meals already prepared, so that the Company will manufacture NOUR not place the dishes. "(sic)
This argument, besides the fact it is quite amazing for a restaurant, do not allow non-application of Article L.122-12.
0 comments:
Post a Comment