Working conditions in call centers are sometimes very difficult. This is what the Court of Cassation has just reminded us, which has just recognized a system of moral harassment set up by one of these companies.
This is a case that pitted an employee, a supervisor in a call center, against his company. He resigned, acknowledged the termination of his employment contract and brought the case before the industrial tribunal to have the termination recognized as the fault of his employer, due to the moral harassment of which he was a victim. Him, but not only him. This employee denounced a real system against all employees. A system that had led him, as reported by the legal editions Tissot, to commit a suicide attempt at his workplace.
The list of facts that are alleged is long, but it includes permanent listening to employees during their calls. A constant rating by superiors, without explanations. Summons to “briefs” that are similar to disciplinary interviews. Employees regularly come out of them in tears. Systematic timing of breaks and a ban on taking time off to go to the toilet outside of break time, or while remaining connected. Constant criticism, insults and threats of dismissal. To prove all this, the employee produces numerous statements from his colleagues and even interviews collected as part of several criminal complaints. 
Moral harassment
We must return to the legal definition of moral harassment. These are repeated actions that are likely to lead to a deterioration in working conditions, which can result in an attack on his rights and dignity, an alteration of his physical or mental health, or a threat to his professional development.
However, this employee was initially ruled against. The appeal court had ruled that these facts were too general and had not affected the employee personally. The Court of Cassation, which has the final say, has acknowledged that there had indeed been “policing” and that employees were suffering at work. It also recalled, and this is very important for all employees, that while the burden of proof lies with the victim of moral harassment, he or she is only required to provide evidence that allows harassment to be presumed. In reality, it is up to the employer to prove that there was no moral harassment. The burden of proof is indeed on him or her.
