Courtroom Labour Court valence arch was full yesterday. so even as the doors had to stay open for all to hear arguments. Indeed, many former Reynolds was there. Master Meyer represented the plaintiffs. The hearing was held twice. First, complaints from two former executives been argued, then it was the turn of employees.
During his speech, Mr. Meyer emphasized the purely legal questions. It was therefore whether:
It was in response to these two questions that we can judge the real and serious cause of layoffs. For this, the argument has recalled the historical facts as well as the accounting data that could see the factory Reynolds bore including a high level of charges the group. Were also raised the glaring lack in regard to the management of jobs and skills (GPEC), as well as significant declines in investment in production facilities.
- one hand, the scope of discretion retained by Newell (factory Reynolds) to argue economic hardship was relevant. Or if it was more relevant, as supported his argument, to detain the entire division writing Newell.
- other hand if the decision to close the plant was really necessary to safeguard competitiveness.
The argument of Mr. Meyer has almost 1:30 time! Argument alive and hopefully convincing.
Even if you can not expect me great objectivity on this subject, we must recognize that the pleading of the opposing party was pretty unconvincing. Less likely by the low level of charisma of the lawyer, while in Paris it is, by the cruel lack of credible arguments. Naturally, he played on the figures, saying for example that certainly benefits from the closure of Reynolds were not immediate, but we began to see the effects! I think this statement alone is enough to make you smile, was the drama of this story, anyone slightly aware of what is left of that mark. But the argument that everyone will remember, and which has impelled the entire room is the evocation Chinese New Year as one of the causes that made the relocation of production inefficient. It was daring!
A statement also was made repeatedly, and as far as I can remember, it is absolutely false. About rumors of closure at the beginning of this sad story, the lawyer said that such rumors would run on the site every arrival of M Leclerc. This is the first time I hear it and I think that was the case throughout the room. Finally, on the reclassification, the lawyer spoke of 90% of people want, which is a bit excessive!
Advisement is for April 23, 2009. Hopefully
judges are convinced of our right!
