In this case, an employer asks its employee not to work overtime. Nevertheless, the employee decides to carry them out. The employer refuses to pay him the additional hours worked on the grounds that he did not agree.

The employee takes legal action. He considers that those hours were due when they were necessary for the performance of his work. As for the employer, it stated that it had told the employee that he should no longer work overtime.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the employee did not have to work overtime that had not been authorized by the employer. For the Court of Appeal, the employer does not have to pay these unauthorized overtime hours to its employee.

The employee goes to the Court of Cassation. He argues that the employer must pay him overtime even in the event of non-compliance with maximum working hours. He maintains that those overtime hours were necessary for the performance of the tasks entrusted to him in view of the workload imposed by his employer.

The Court of Cassation does not validate the judgment of the Court of Appeal. She's picking up the clause L. 3121-28 of the Labor Code which provides that any overtime worked shall be entitled to a salary increase or equivalent compensatory rest. The Court states that the employee may claim payment for the hours worked either by an implicit agreement of the employer, or because " the performance of such hours was made necessary by the tasks entrusted to him ».

The judge therefore ordered the employer to pay the overtime worked by his employee.