A dismissal letter signed by the wrong person
The case involves a sales director employed by a regional subsidiary of an automotive distribution group. He joined the group in 1998 as head of sales, and most recently held the position of sales director for the subsidiary that employed him.
Dismissed for gross misconduct by a letter dated 22 July 2020, he challenged the validity of the procedure before the labour tribunal (conseil de prud’hommes). The site director, authorised under a delegation of authority dated 23 June 2020, was indeed the person mandated to dismiss him. However, the letter was in fact signed “for order” by the HR manager of another company within the group, who was also involved in processing payroll for the employing subsidiary.
The legal principle: authority must be proven, not presumed
For the Cour de cassation, “the very purpose of the preliminary interview and the rules governing notification of dismissal prohibit the employer from mandating a person outside the company to conduct this interview and notify the dismissal.” Belonging to the same group, or being involved in payroll management for a subsidiary, is therefore not sufficient to demonstrate such a mandate.
The Court of Appeal had found that the employer proved neither that the signatory managed HR for the subsidiary concerned, nor that her own company held a parent-company position or exercised authority over the employer. The Cour de cassation upheld this reasoning and dismissed the employer’s appeal on this point, confirming that the dismissal was without real and serious cause — without even needing to examine the allegations made against the employee.
€242,595 confirmed, but the case not fully closed
Confirmation of the procedural defect upholds the award made by the Court of Appeal: €130,000 in damages for dismissal without real and serious cause, €60,600 in severance pay, €27,270 in notice pay, €10,000 for the vexatious manner of the dismissal, plus salary and paid leave linked to the suspension — a total of €242,595.
The ruling holds a second surprise, however. On the employee’s cross-appeal, the Cour de cassation partially quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision refusing him payment for overtime and compensation for concealed work, on the grounds that he held “cadre dirigeant” (senior executive) status. The lower court judges had not verified whether his actual working conditions and remuneration met the criteria set out in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. This aspect has been remitted to a differently composed Court of Appeal, leaving open the possibility of further sums being awarded.
Particular vigilance required for multi-entity hotel groups
Although this case originated in the automotive distribution sector, it highlights a structural risk well known to hotel groups: the sharing of support functions, including HR, across several operating companies, holding structures or delegated management entities. A collective redundancy plan affecting several properties within the same group — such as the one that hit the Hyatt Regency Paris Étoile, Hyatt Louvre and Martinez hotels within the Hôtels Constellation group — illustrates this organisation into distinct subsidiaries, each remaining the legal employer of its own staff.
In this type of setup, a properly established delegation of authority in favour of the correct signatory — such as the one held by the site director in this case — is not sufficient if another person ultimately signs “for order” without a demonstrated link to the employing company. Case law confirms that this link must be formalised and verifiable; otherwise, the entire dismissal can be called into question, regardless of the merits of the allegations against the employee.
This ruling forms part of a busy period of case law for hotel HR departments, who must also contend with recent clarifications from the Cour de cassation on dismissal for incapacity and the calculation of seniority, as well as the recognition of environmental harassment by the Social Chamber. All of this serves as a reminder that procedural rigour in dismissal proceedings remains, in hospitality as elsewhere, a front-line concern for employers.
At a glance by The Hospitality Tribune
Wrong signatory voids a dismissal, case still open
France’s Cour de cassation confirmed on 1 April 2026 that a dismissal letter signed “for order” by an HR manager from another group entity, with no proven authority link, has no legal effect
Confirmed damages: €242,595, including €130,000 in compensation and €60,600 in severance pay
The court partially quashed a separate part of the ruling on overtime pay and “cadre dirigeant” status, remanding it to a differently composed appeals court, meaning further sums could still be awarded
Case originated in the automotive distribution sector, but the principle applies directly to hotel groups with multiple operating entities and shared HR functions
Key takeaway for hospitality employers: a valid delegation of authority must be exercised by the delegate personally, or by someone whose link to the employing entity is formally documented
