Changes to terms and conditions may trigger the rules on mass redundancies
The European Court of Justice has ruled that employees who reject changes to their terms and conditions also count as terminated under the rules on mass redundancies, if the company terminates more than five employees during the same period.
A French construction company lost a major customer and offered 82 employees the opportunity to transfer to other departments temporarily. The company had a collective bargaining agreement that allowed employees to be transferred temporarily. 11 employees refused to transfer and brought legal proceedings to terminate their employment.
After about a month, the company reached an agreement with the trade unions to relocate the employees. Two of the 11 employees were, therefore, offered new positions, which they both declined. About a year later, the employees were terminated, and the question was whether their terminations should be counted under the rules on mass redundancies.
The European Court of Justice concluded that the employees should be included if the company terminated more than five employees and if it was the company's changes that caused the employees to resign.
IUNO’s opinion
If companies terminate more than five employees within 30 days, they must also include employees who leave for reasons not attributable to their own resignation in accordance with the rules on mass redundancies. For example, this could be the case if the employee leaves as part of a severance agreement. The case shows that employees who resign because a company is enforcing changes in terms and conditions must also be included in the calculation, regardless of whether the changes are material or not.
IUNO recommends that companies follow the rules on mass redundancies before imposing changes to employees’ terms and conditions. If too many employees resign due to the change, the rules on mass redundancies should have been followed from the outset. If companies do not follow the rules, there is a risk that the change will not be implemented at all and that the employees will still be considered employees. This follows from a proposal by the Advocate General, which we have written more about here.
[Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 4 September 2025 in Case C-249/24]
A French construction company lost a major customer and offered 82 employees the opportunity to transfer to other departments temporarily. The company had a collective bargaining agreement that allowed employees to be transferred temporarily. 11 employees refused to transfer and brought legal proceedings to terminate their employment.
After about a month, the company reached an agreement with the trade unions to relocate the employees. Two of the 11 employees were, therefore, offered new positions, which they both declined. About a year later, the employees were terminated, and the question was whether their terminations should be counted under the rules on mass redundancies.
The European Court of Justice concluded that the employees should be included if the company terminated more than five employees and if it was the company's changes that caused the employees to resign.
IUNO’s opinion
If companies terminate more than five employees within 30 days, they must also include employees who leave for reasons not attributable to their own resignation in accordance with the rules on mass redundancies. For example, this could be the case if the employee leaves as part of a severance agreement. The case shows that employees who resign because a company is enforcing changes in terms and conditions must also be included in the calculation, regardless of whether the changes are material or not.
IUNO recommends that companies follow the rules on mass redundancies before imposing changes to employees’ terms and conditions. If too many employees resign due to the change, the rules on mass redundancies should have been followed from the outset. If companies do not follow the rules, there is a risk that the change will not be implemented at all and that the employees will still be considered employees. This follows from a proposal by the Advocate General, which we have written more about here.
[Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 4 September 2025 in Case C-249/24]
Similar
The team
Alma
Winsløw-Lydeking
Senior legal assistant
Anders
Etgen Reitz
Partner
Cecillie
Groth Henriksen
Senior associate
Elias
Lederhaas
Legal assistant
Emilie
Louise Børsch
Associate
Frederikke
Ludvig Rossen
Junior legal assistant
Johan
Gustav Dein
Senior associate
Kirsten
Astrup
Managing associate
Laura
Dyvad Ziemer Markill
Legal assistant
Sunniva
Løfsgaard
Legal assistant