An employer pays a year-end bonus to all of its employees every December. Nothing in the employment contract or in the collective agreement requires this. After several years, a new director decides to eliminate this bonus. Can the employees oppose this? The whole question revolves around a specific legal mechanism: company usage.
Proof and litigation: what the judge really checks
Online articles and guides detail the three classic criteria of usage (generality, constancy, fixity). In practice, before the labor tribunal, the difficulty does not lie in knowing these criteria, but in how to prove them.
The judge examines concrete material elements. Pay slips, internal notes, and payment histories form the basis of the demonstration. An employee claiming the continuation of a bonus must show that the amount or the calculation method has remained stable over several periods.
A bonus paid multiple times but with varying amounts from year to year can be reclassified as a simple discretionary decision of the employer. The characteristic of fixity requires identifiable calculation rules that are applied consistently. Understanding company usage in labor law involves this evidentiary dimension, which is often underestimated.
The beneficiary population also matters. If the benefit only affects two or three individuals chosen by the manager, the criterion of generality is lacking. In contrast, a benefit granted to all employees of the same department or professional category meets this condition.
Company usage and sick pay: a blurry boundary
You may have noticed that some employers supplement salaries from the first day of sick leave, while Social Security does not cover the first three days (the waiting period)? This practice is widespread. According to Dares (September 2026 publication, 2024 data), 45% of non-agricultural private companies with at least 10 employees reported compensating all or part of these first three days.
The trap lies in the legal qualification of this compensation. It may stem from a legal obligation, a collective agreement, or a voluntary commitment by the employer. Only a benefit without legal or contractual basis can fall under usage.
Before considering a practice as an acquired usage, it is necessary to trace its exact source. An employee contesting the elimination of this supplementary compensation must prove that no text mandated it and that the three criteria (generality, constancy, fixity) are met. This prior verification avoids many disappointments in case of disputes.
Procedure for denouncing a usage: steps to follow
An employer wishing to eliminate a usage does not need the agreement of the employees. They have unilateral power to denounce it, but it is framed by a strict procedure. A usage not denounced according to the rules remains applicable, even if the employer has not paid the benefit for several months.
The procedure is based on three cumulative obligations:
- Inform the social and economic committee (CSE), if it exists in the company, of the decision to eliminate the usage and the reasons behind it.
- Notify each affected employee individually, by registered mail or hand delivery against receipt, so that everyone is personally informed.
- Respect a sufficient notice period between the notification and the effective elimination, so that employees can engage in negotiation or adjust their budget.
Failure to comply with any one of these steps renders the denunciation unenforceable. The employee can then bring the matter before the labor tribunal to claim the maintenance of the benefit and, if applicable, back payments of unpaid amounts.
The role of the CSE in this procedure
Informing the CSE is not a mere formality. Employee representatives can ask questions, request economic justifications, and issue an opinion. The CSE does not have a veto right, but its opinion is recorded in the minutes. In case of litigation, a judge will verify that this consultation took place.
The absence of a CSE in companies with fewer than 11 employees does not exempt from individual notification. Each employee must receive a personal letter.
Company usage, collective agreement, and employment contract: how to distinguish them
The confusion between these three sources of law is common. A benefit included in the employment contract cannot be unilaterally eliminated: the employee’s agreement is required. A benefit provided by a collective agreement only disappears upon the expiration or denunciation of that agreement, according to the rules of the Labor Code.
Usage is the most fragile source for the employee, because it can be denounced solely by the employer, without negotiation. This is why some employee representatives seek to incorporate the most favorable usages into a company agreement. Once formalized in a signed agreement, the benefit enjoys much stronger legal protection.
Conversely, a commitment made by the employer in an individual letter addressed to a specific employee can be analyzed as a unilateral commitment distinct from usage. This type of commitment follows its own legal regime and is not denounced in the same manner.
Business transfer and the fate of usage
During a takeover or merger, employment contracts are automatically transferred to the acquirer. Usages, however, follow a different regime. The new employer is not obliged to maintain a usage established by the previous one, provided it is denounced in the proper forms. Without formal denunciation, the usage survives the change of employer.
The affected employees therefore have an interest in quickly verifying, after a transfer, whether the usual practices (bonuses, additional leave days, benefits in kind) are maintained or if a denunciation is underway.
The protection offered by company usage remains conditional and temporary. Identifying the exact legal nature of a benefit, gathering evidence of its constancy and fixity, and monitoring any denunciation procedure: these reflexes allow both employees and employers to secure their position before a disagreement ends up before the judge.
