In England, your employer only has to put the reasons for your dismissal in writing once you have completed two years of service. The British government states the rule plainly: in England, only employees with two years of service can demand a written statement of the reasons for dismissal (gov.uk, Dismissal: your rights). In France, the logic is reversed: from your very first day in the job, no dismissal — licenciement — is valid without a registered letter setting out the reasons, and a single missed step in the procedure can itself turn an otherwise justified dismissal into one a court will condemn. Since Brexit, British citizens working for French employers live entirely under this French system: your English expectations about notice, redundancy pay and tribunals do not travel with you, and the French labour court — the conseil de prud’hommes — applies French rules to your case even if your contract was negotiated in English. This article explains, for a British reader, the procedure your employer must follow to the letter, the notice period (préavis) and severance pay (indemnité de licenciement) you are owed with worked calculations, and how to challenge a dismissal you consider unfair, including the compensation scale, the twelve-month deadline that extinguishes late claims, and the negotiated alternative that many British employees prefer. Every French term is translated when it first appears.

I. Your Dismissal in France: the Procedure Your Employer Must Follow and the Notice Period and Severance Pay You Are Owed

French dismissal law protects you in two completely different ways, and you need both. The first protection is procedural: your employer must follow a fixed sequence of steps, with fixed minimum delays between them, and the dismissal letter that closes the sequence must state the reasons. The second protection is financial: once dismissed, you are owed a notice period and, in most cases, a statutory severance payment calculated by fractions of monthly salary, on top of which a court can award further compensation if the dismissal was unfair. British employees lose cases on each of these two tracks for mirror-image reasons: some assume, English-style, that a dismissal without a proper process can still stand if the underlying reason was fair, while others sign whatever final papers are put in front of them without checking the arithmetic. Part I below walks you through the employer’s compulsory procedure first, then through the money, with the exact statutory wording in each case.

A. The Summons, the Meeting and the Dismissal Letter: the Five-Day Rule, the Hearing and the Two-Day Rule

Everything starts with a formal summons to a preliminary meeting — the entretien préalable. An employer who is considering dismissing you must summon you to this meeting before taking any decision, and the summons itself must follow a prescribed form. Article L. 1232-2 of the Labour Code provides: “L’employeur qui envisage de licencier un salarié le convoque, avant toute décision, à un entretien préalable. La convocation est effectuée par lettre recommandée ou par lettre remise en main propre contre décharge. Cette lettre indique l’objet de la convocation” — an employer considering dismissing an employee summons him or her, before any decision, to a preliminary meeting; the summons is sent by registered letter or delivered by hand against a signed receipt, and it states the purpose of the meeting (article L. 1232-2 of the Labour Code). In practice, check two things the moment this letter arrives: that it was sent by one of the two authorised routes, and that it states it concerns a possible dismissal. The administration’s own guidance confirms the timetable is strict: at least five full working days (jours ouvrables) must separate the first presentation of the registered letter and the meeting, neither the day of presentation nor the day of the meeting counting, and Saturday counts as a working day for this purpose (service-public.fr, Procédure de licenciement d’un salarié pour motif personnel). A meeting held on the fourth day is already a procedural defect, even if everything else was done perfectly.

At the meeting itself, the employer must explain the reasons being considered and listen to your explanations; you are entitled to be accompanied, and you cannot be penalised for attending or for staying away. The decisive document, however, comes afterwards: the dismissal letter — the lettre de licenciement — which French law treats with a seriousness that surprises most British employees. Article L. 1232-6 of the Labour Code provides: “Lorsque l’employeur décide de licencier un salarié, il lui notifie sa décision par lettre recommandée avec avis de réception. Cette lettre comporte l’énoncé du ou des motifs invoqués par l’employeur. Elle ne peut être expédiée moins de deux jours ouvrables après la date prévue de l’entretien préalable” — when the employer decides to dismiss, it notifies the decision by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt; the letter states the reasons relied upon, and it cannot be sent less than two full working days after the scheduled preliminary meeting (article L. 1232-6 of the Labour Code). Two consequences follow that shape every later dispute. First, a reason that is not in the letter does not exist for the court: your employer cannot invent a better justification at the hearing. Second, if the stated reasons are vague or incomplete, either side may ask for clarification after notification — the administration expressly provides for the employer or the employee to request or supply details of the stated reason within a short window (service-public.fr, Procédure de licenciement, section 6) — but clarification cannot substitute a wholly new reason. Keep the envelope as well as the letter: the postmark proves the two-day interval, and British claimants regularly win on this point alone because small French employers post too early.

When the contract ends, your employer must hand over the end-of-contract papers, and you should check them before signing anything. The employment certificate — the certificat de travail — is compulsory: “A l’expiration du contrat de travail, l’employeur délivre au salarié un certificat dont le contenu est déterminé par voie réglementaire” — when the employment contract expires, the employer issues the employee a certificate whose content is set by regulation (article L. 1234-19 of the Labour Code). Alongside it you must receive the final settlement statement — the solde de tout compte, the itemised receipt for all sums paid on departure — and the certificate you hand to France Travail, the French public employment service, to open your unemployment-benefit rights. The solde de tout compte deserves a warning: signing it without reservation starts a short six-month limitation period for disputing the amounts shown on it, so if any figure looks wrong, add a handwritten reservation or refuse to sign and take advice. These papers matter beyond money: if your French residence as a British citizen depends on a work-linked permit rather than on the Withdrawal Agreement, a gap in employment can have knock-on effects at renewal, so keep every document and check your permit category early rather than discovering the problem at the préfecture counter.

B. Your Notice Period and Your Statutory Severance Pay: How the Quarter-Month and Third-Month Fractions Work

Dismissal in France does not end the contract overnight except in cases of serious or gross misconduct. In all other cases you are entitled to a notice period — the préavis — during which the contract continues and you are paid normally, and whose length is set by your employment contract, your collective bargaining agreement (convention collective) or, failing that, by trade custom. If your employer exempts you from working the notice, or if you do not work it for any reason, the money is still due except in cases of serious misconduct. Article L. 1234-5 of the Labour Code provides: “Lorsque le salarié n’exécute pas le préavis, il a droit, sauf s’il a commis une faute grave, à une indemnité compensatrice” — where the employee does not work the notice period, he or she is entitled, except in the case of serious misconduct, to compensatory payment (article L. 1234-5 of the Labour Code). Note the asymmetry British readers often miss: it is the misconduct finding, not the dismissal itself, that strips the right. A dismissal for ordinary poor performance or for a minor fault (faute simple) leaves both notice and severance intact; only serious misconduct (faute grave) or gross misconduct (faute lourde) removes them. Unused paid holiday is settled separately through a compensatory holiday payment, and any contractual severance clause in your favour applies on top of the statutory minimum described next.

The statutory severance payment — the indemnité légale de licenciement — belongs to every employee on an open-ended contract (contrat à durée indéterminée, the standard French permanent contract) dismissed with at least eight months of continuous service with the same employer. Article L. 1234-9 of the Labour Code provides: “Le salarié titulaire d’un contrat de travail à durée indéterminée, licencié alors qu’il compte 8 mois d’ancienneté ininterrompus au service du même employeur, a droit, sauf en cas de faute grave, à une indemnité de licenciement” — an employee on an open-ended contract, dismissed with eight months of unbroken service with the same employer, is entitled, except in the case of serious misconduct, to a severance payment (article L. 1234-9 of the Labour Code). The calculation fractions are fixed by regulation and favour long service. Article R. 1234-2 of the Labour Code provides: “L’indemnité de licenciement ne peut être inférieure aux montants suivants : 1° Un quart de mois de salaire par année d’ancienneté pour les années jusqu’à dix ans ; 2° Un tiers de mois de salaire par année d’ancienneté pour les années à partir de dix ans” — the payment cannot be less than one quarter of a month’s salary per year of service for the first ten years, and one third of a month’s salary per year beyond ten years (article R. 1234-2 of the Labour Code). Take two worked examples on a reference salary, which is broadly your average gross pay over the final months. With five years of service at 3,500 euros gross per month, the minimum is five times one quarter of 3,500, which is 4,375 euros. With twelve years at 4,000 euros, the minimum is ten times 1,000 euros plus two times one third of 4,000, which is 10,000 plus 2,666.67, or 12,666.67 euros. The administration runs an online simulator for the statutory payment (code.travail.gouv.fr, Simulateur — Calcul de l’indemnité de licenciement), and your collective agreement very often grants more — check it before accepting the statutory figure, because employers sometimes “forget” the conventional top-up. Part of the payment can fall within statutory exemptions from income tax and social charges up to set ceilings, but the ceilings depend on how the payment breaks down between legal, contractual and court-awarded elements, so have the figures checked on your own file rather than assuming the whole sum is tax-free.

British employees who also work remotely for a British employer, or who split their activity between the two countries, should keep the tax and social-security picture separate from the dismissal arithmetic. The dismissal payments follow the French rules above whatever the nationality of the ultimate parent company, while the taxation of your ongoing earnings and the question of which social-security system covers you follow different instruments, including the France–United Kingdom double tax treaty and the social-security coordination rules that replaced free movement. The firm’s earlier guide explains, for British remote workers, how France taxes British remote workers and when URSSAF affiliation and charges are due, and that analysis remains the reference once the dismissal dust settles and you reorganise your working life. Do not let an employer bundle the two subjects: a severance discussion is governed by the Labour Code, and a vaguely worded global settlement that mixes severance, notice, holiday pay and bonus without itemisation should be refused until each line is identified, because each line carries its own tax treatment and its own limitation period.

II. Challenging Your Dismissal: the Labour Court, the Compensation Scale and the Settlement Route

Contesting a dismissal in France means going before the elected labour court — the conseil de prud’hommes — of the place where you work, so in Paris if your office is in Paris, and doing so within a deadline that is far shorter than most British employees imagine. Article L. 1471-1 of the Labour Code provides: “Toute action portant sur la rupture du contrat de travail se prescrit par douze mois à compter de la notification de la rupture” — any claim concerning the termination of the employment contract is time-barred twelve months after notification of the termination (article L. 1471-1 of the Labour Code). Twelve months from the dismissal letter, not from the end of the notice period and not from the discovery of some later unfairness: the clock starts when the registered letter is first presented. The administration confirms the route: where the employee disputes the reason, he or she must bring the case before the labour court, and the judge may annul a dismissal prohibited by law, declare it without real and serious cause, or sanction a purely procedural irregularity, each with different consequences (service-public.fr, Licenciement nul, sans cause réelle et sérieuse ou irrégulier). British readers should reset their English reflexes here: in England an unfair-dismissal claim generally needs two years of service and must reach the employment tribunal within three months less one day, whereas in France there is no qualifying seniority for challenging the reason and the deadline is twelve months. The two systems share nothing except the word “tribunal”.

A. Why the Dismissal Letter Fixes the Dispute and What Compensation the Macron Scale Gives You

The single most powerful rule for an employee is that the dismissal letter freezes the employer’s case. The Court of Cassation — the Cour de cassation, France’s supreme court for private-law matters — holds: “si la lettre de licenciement fixe les limites du litige en ce qui concerne les griefs articulés à l’encontre du salarié et les conséquences que l’employeur entend en tirer quant aux modalités de rupture, il appartient au juge de qualifier les faits invoqués” — while the dismissal letter fixes the limits of the dispute as regards the complaints made against the employee and the consequences the employer draws from them for the form of termination, it is for the court to characterise the facts relied upon (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 16 September 2020, appeal no. 18-25.943). In that case the appeal court had accepted the facts but refused to call them serious misconduct, declaring the dismissal without real and serious cause; the supreme court quashed the ruling because the judges had failed to ask whether the established facts amounted at least to serious misconduct or to conduct giving a real and serious cause: “sans rechercher si les faits ainsi reprochés à la salariée n’étaient pas constitutifs d’une faute grave ou d’une faute de nature à conférer une cause réelle et sérieuse au licenciement, la cour d’appel n’a pas donné de base légale à sa décision” — by ruling as it did without asking whether the facts complained of constituted serious misconduct or conduct capable of giving a real and serious cause for dismissal, the appeal court gave no legal basis for its decision (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 16 September 2020, appeal no. 18-25.943). The lesson cuts both ways and you should use it honestly: the court re-characterises the facts freely, so an employer who labelled misconduct “serious” to avoid paying notice and severance can still lose both if the facts only support an ordinary dismissal, while an employee whose letter contains solid, dated, checkable facts faces an uphill claim even if the employer’s chosen label was clumsy. Your first task on receiving the letter is therefore forensic, not emotional: list every stated grievance, date it, and ask what written proof the employer actually holds for each one.

If the court finds the dismissal without real and serious cause — sans cause réelle et sérieuse, the French equivalent of what a British reader calls unfair dismissal — it can propose reinstatement, and if either side refuses, it awards compensation within a binding scale, the so-called Macron scale (barème Macron). Article L. 1235-3 of the Labour Code provides: “Si le licenciement d’un salarié survient pour une cause qui n’est pas réelle et sérieuse, le juge peut proposer la réintégration du salarié dans l’entreprise, avec maintien de ses avantages acquis. Si l’une ou l’autre des parties refuse cette réintégration, le juge octroie au salarié une indemnité à la charge de l’employeur, dont le montant est compris entre les montants minimaux et maximaux fixés dans le tableau ci-dessous” — where a dismissal is without real and serious cause, the court may propose reinstatement with accrued benefits maintained; if either party refuses reinstatement, the court awards the employee compensation within the minimum and maximum amounts of the table (article L. 1235-3 of the Labour Code). The table runs from a maximum of one month’s salary with no seniority, through two years of service at three to three-and-a-half months, five years at three to six months, and ten years at three to ten months, up to thirty years and beyond at three to twenty months; in businesses with habitually fewer than eleven employees the minimum amounts are lower. The scale is mandatory, not indicative: on 11 May 2022 the Social Chamber quashed a Paris ruling that had awarded 32,000 euros above the scale, holding that “En application de l’article L. 1235-3 du code du travail, si le licenciement d’un salarié survient pour une cause qui n’est pas réelle et sérieuse, le juge octroie au salarié une indemnité à la charge de l’employeur, dont le montant est compris entre des montants minimaux et maximaux fixés par ce texte” — under article L. 1235-3, compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause must fall between the minimum and maximum set by that provision (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 11 May 2022, appeal no. 21-14.490). The same ruling confirms the scale’s compatibility with international law, noting that the provisions of article 10 of International Labour Organisation Convention no. 158 on adequate compensation “sont d’effet direct en droit interne” — have direct effect in domestic law (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 11 May 2022, appeal no. 21-14.490) — while keeping the award inside the statutory frame. Three practical points follow. First, compute your bracket before deciding to sue: with four years of service the ceiling is five months, so a claim only makes sense if the employer’s settlement offer sits clearly below what the court would give. Second, dismissals that are void (nul) — for discrimination, harassment, or violation of a protected status such as maternity — escape the scale with higher awards and possible reinstatement, so always check whether your facts fit a nullity category before accepting a scale-based valuation. Third, where the court condemns the employer, it can order reimbursement to the bodies concerned of unemployment benefits paid between dismissal and judgment, up to six months of benefit per employee: “le juge ordonne le remboursement par l’employeur fautif aux organismes intéressés de tout ou partie des indemnités de chômage versées au salarié licencié, du jour de son licenciement au jour du jugement prononcé, dans la limite de six mois d’indemnités de chômage” (article L. 1235-4 of the Labour Code). A purely procedural irregularity — a late letter, a missed delay — without an unfair reason gives only a limited one month’s compensation, which is why procedure is your second argument, never your only one.

B. The Negotiated Exit and the Twelve-Month Deadline: Rupture Conventionnelle or a Labour Court Claim

Many British employees prefer a negotiated departure to a lawsuit, and French law provides a purpose-built vehicle: the rupture conventionnelle, the agreed termination by mutual consent. It is neither a dismissal nor a resignation, and, crucially, it cannot be imposed: article L. 1237-11 of the Labour Code provides that “La rupture conventionnelle, exclusive du licenciement ou de la démission, ne peut être imposée par l’une ou l’autre des parties. Elle résulte d’une convention signée par les parties au contrat” — the agreed termination, which precludes both dismissal and resignation, cannot be imposed by either party; it results from an agreement signed by the parties to the contract (article L. 1237-11 of the Labour Code). The agreement must provide termination compensation at least equal to the statutory severance, and it builds in two cooling mechanisms. Article L. 1237-13 of the Labour Code provides: “A compter de la date de sa signature par les deux parties, chacune d’entre elles dispose d’un délai de quinze jours calendaires pour exercer son droit de rétractation” — from signature by both parties, each has fifteen calendar days to exercise a right of withdrawal (article L. 1237-13 of the Labour Code), after which the agreement goes to the labour administration for approval (homologation), with the contract ending no earlier than the day after approval. The administration can refuse approval, in which case the agreement fails and the contract continues — a safety net with no English equivalent.

The supreme court polices this procedure strictly, and one ruling matters directly to any British employee pressed to “sign quickly”. The Court of Cassation holds: “la remise d’un exemplaire de la convention de rupture au salarié étant nécessaire à la fois pour que chacune des parties puisse demander l’homologation de la convention, dans les conditions prévues par l’article L. 1237-14 du code du travail, et pour garantir le libre consentement du salarié, en lui permettant d’exercer ensuite son droit de rétractation en connaissance de cause, il s’ensuit qu’à défaut d’une telle remise, la convention de rupture est nulle” — giving the employee a copy of the termination agreement is necessary both so that either party can seek approval and so as to guarantee free consent by letting the employee exercise the withdrawal right with full knowledge; without such delivery, the agreement is void (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 23 September 2020, appeal no. 18-25.770). And where delivery is disputed, “il appartient à celui qui invoque cette remise d’en rapporter la preuve” — it is for the party claiming delivery to prove it (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 23 September 2020, appeal no. 18-25.770). A void agreement is reclassified as a dismissal without real and serious cause, with the Macron-scale compensation described above. The tactical message is simple: never sign an agreed termination in the meeting where it is first proposed, always leave with your copy, use the fifteen days to have the figures checked, and remember that the withdrawal right is yours individually even if your employer talks as though the deal were settled. French competitors that track this case law frame it the same way — one widely read practitioner guide structures the whole subject as definition, scale mechanics and challenge route with a dedicated comparison between agreed termination and dismissal (a widely read French practitioner guide structures the whole subject as definition, scale mechanics and challenge route with a dedicated comparison between agreed termination and dismissal) — but none of them addresses the British reader’s situation: the interplay with a French-language procedure you must navigate in French, the residence-permit consequences of a work-linked status, and the English-law reflexes to unlearn. That triangulation is what this article adds.

Your decision tree in the days after the letter is therefore short and unforgiving. First, diary the twelve-month deadline from the letter’s first presentation and treat month eleven as your absolute limit for filing, because preparing a labour-court file — letter, contract, payslips, summons, proof of posting dates, witness statements — takes weeks, and the limitation in article L. 1471-1 admits no extension for negotiations that drift. Second, compute both figures: the statutory severance under article R. 1234-2 and your Macron-scale bracket under article L. 1235-3, then measure any settlement offer against the sum, remembering that a settlement below the scale floor only makes sense if your evidence on the reason is weak. Third, if the employer proposes an agreed termination instead, test consent, copy, withdrawal period and approval in that order, and withdraw within the fifteen days if any element was rushed. Fourth, keep the residence question on a separate track: Withdrawal Agreement holders keep a status independent of any single job, while newcomers on work-linked permits should verify renewal conditions immediately, since a labour dispute and an immigration file move on different clocks. Cases are won in France on paper and dates — the registered letter, the five-day interval, the two-day interval, the copy of the agreement — and a British employee who masters those four documents stands on exactly the same footing as a French colleague.

Conclusion

A dismissal in France is a procedure before it is a dispute: the summons and its five working days, the hearing, the registered letter with its stated reasons and its two working days, then the notice period and the severance fractions of one quarter and one third of a month per year of service. The challenge, if challenge there is, runs on a parallel track with its own logic: the letter freezes the employer’s case and the judge re-characterises the facts freely; compensation for an unfair dismissal sits inside the binding Macron scale, from one month to twenty months according to seniority; void dismissals escape the scale; and the whole action dies twelve months after notification of the termination. Alongside stands the negotiated alternative, valid only by genuine mutual consent, with your own copy, fifteen days to withdraw, and administrative approval. For a British employee, the deepest trap is importing English assumptions — waiting two years to feel protected, expecting a tribunal in three months, or treating a settlement conversation as “without prejudice” small talk. France protects you earlier, pays by fractions and scales, and forgives nothing on deadlines. Read the letter, count the days, compute the figures, and act within the year.