Your first hire in France was supposed to make life easier. Six months later, the fit is wrong: the employee works, but the role, the pace or the trust is not there, and you manage the company from London, New York, Dubai or Singapore. You want a clean separation, without a dismissal procedure that drags on for months and without asking the employee to resign, which solves nothing and creates risk. The French answer to this situation is the rupture conventionnelle, the mutual separation agreement: the employer and the employee agree together on the end of an open-ended contract, with a negotiated payment and a departure date, under the control of the labour administration. When it is done properly, the employee can claim unemployment benefits and you close the file with a signed agreement instead of a dispute. When it is done badly from abroad, with a rushed video call, a severance below the legal floor or a filing sent too early, the administration refuses to approve it or the labour court cancels it, and you end up paying far more than the amount you tried to save. This guide explains the full route for a foreign-based founder: how to run the meetings and protect consent at a distance, how to compute the minimum payment to the euro, how to file for approval online, and what to do when the employee changes their mind or the administration says no. Readers who are still choosing their French vehicle should start with our companion guide on choosing between an SAS, an SARL, a branch and a subsidiary as a foreign founder, because the powers of the person who signs the agreement for the company depend on that choice.

I. How to sign an enforceable rupture conventionnelle while you manage from abroad

The rupture conventionnelle is only open to open-ended contracts, known as CDI (contrat à durée indéterminée, the standard permanent contract). It cannot be used to end a fixed-term contract, and it cannot be imposed by either side. That last point is the one foreign employers misunderstand most often: where an American separation agreement can be presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, the French version requires genuine common ground, verified twice, first by the parties themselves during interviews, then by the administration during approval. Distance does not excuse shortcuts, but it does not block the procedure either, provided you organise each step in writing and keep proof of everything.

A. One or several interviews and genuine consent organised at a distance

The starting rule is short and strict. The Labour Code states that “L’employeur et le salarié peuvent convenir en commun des conditions de la rupture du contrat de travail qui les lie. 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. Elle est soumise aux dispositions de la présente section destinées à garantir la liberté du consentement des parties.” (Article L1237-11 of the Labour Code). Three consequences follow for a founder who lives abroad. First, the initiative can come from you or from the employee, but the other side must be able to say no without retaliation. An email that reads as an order to sign, a threat of dismissal if the employee refuses, or a sudden demotion used as leverage can later be presented to the labour court as pressure that destroyed consent. Second, the agreement must be mutual in substance, not only in signature: the amount, the date and the conditions are negotiated, and a file where the employee accepted the first figure within the hour, without any meeting, looks imposed even if the signature is real. Third, consent must still exist on the day of signature. An employee who signed while in a state of proven moral harassment, deception or violence can ask the court to cancel the whole agreement, which is then reclassified as a dismissal without real and serious cause, with back pay and damages under the dismissal scale.

The Code then describes the meetings that frame this consent: “Les parties au contrat conviennent du principe d’une rupture conventionnelle lors d’un ou plusieurs entretiens au cours desquels le salarié peut se faire assister” (Article L1237-12 of the Labour Code), and the same article details who may attend on each side. The employee may be assisted either by a person of their choice from the staff of the company, whether a union member, an elected staff representative or any other employee, or, where the company has no staff representative body, which is the normal case for a first hire, by an outside employee adviser chosen from an official list drawn up by the administration. The employer may be assisted when the employee uses that right, and must warn the employee beforehand; in companies with fewer than fifty employees, the employer may bring a person from the company staff, a person from their employer organisation, or another employer from the same sector. Two practical points matter enormously when you are abroad. The information duty runs both ways: if the employee tells you they will come assisted, you must in turn tell them if you will be assisted too, before the meeting. And the assistance balance is policed by the courts through pressure, not through symmetry. The Court of Cassation holds that “l’assistance de l’employeur lors de l’entretien préalable à la signature de la convention de rupture ne peut entraîner la nullité de la rupture conventionnelle que si elle a engendré une contrainte ou une pression pour le salarié qui se présente seul à l’entretien” (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 5 June 2019, appeal 18-10.901). In plain terms, arriving with your Paris accountant while the employee sits alone does not automatically kill the agreement, but arriving with two people, cutting the employee off, or holding the meeting in a language they barely understand can be read as pressure, and pressure kills consent.

The harassment question deserves a clear explanation because first employment relationships often degrade before they end. An employee who claims they were harassed and then signed a mutual separation will sometimes argue that the context alone should cancel the agreement. The Court of Cassation rejected that shortcut: “en l’absence de vice du consentement, l’existence de faits de harcèlement moral n’affecte pas en elle-même la validité de la convention de rupture intervenue en application de l’article L. 1237-11 du code du travail” (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 23 January 2019, appeal 17-21.550). The lesson runs in both directions. For the employer, a difficult context does not forbid a mutual separation: the existence of a dispute or of reproaches does not by itself block the procedure, as long as consent is genuine. For the employee side, and therefore for your risk assessment, harassment evidence combined with proof that consent was actually vitiated, threats, deception about rights, signature obtained in a state of shock, can still lead to cancellation. The safest file from abroad is therefore a slow file: propose the discussion in writing without presenting the outcome as decided, hold at least two meetings even if the law tolerates one, leave several days between the proposal and the signature, write short minutes of each meeting stating who was present, whether anyone was assisted, and what figures were discussed, and keep the messages showing the employee had time to think and to seek advice. Video meetings are accepted in practice, but organise them carefully: send the connection details in advance, confirm at the start that the employee hears and understands, ask explicitly whether they wish to be assisted and note the answer, and never record the conversation without clear prior consent, since a secret recording poisons the file and can breach privacy rules. If the employee works in Paris or elsewhere in the Paris region, remember that the outside adviser list is held by the local administration, the DREETS (direction régionale de l’économie, de l’emploi, du travail et des solidarités, the regional labour administration) of Ile-de-France, and that the employee chooses independently from it. Mentioning that list in your invitation letter costs nothing and proves loyalty: it shows the labour court that you informed a lone employee of their rights instead of rushing them.

One population requires a separate track: protected employees. Works council members, union delegates, employees on maternity protection procedures and similar statuses cannot follow the standard approval route. The Code provides that their mutual separation needs the authorisation of the labour inspector instead of standard approval (Article L1237-15 of the Labour Code), with the works council consulted where one exists. With a first hire this is rare, but check the status before starting: discovering the protection after signature wastes the whole timetable.

B. The severance floor and how to compute it without error

The payment is where most foreign employers underpay, often by following an American or British template that mentions a discretionary package. In France the package has a mandatory floor, and the administration checks it to the euro. The Code states that “La convention de rupture définit les conditions de celle-ci, notamment le montant de l’indemnité spécifique de rupture conventionnelle qui ne peut pas être inférieur à celui de l’indemnité prévue à l’article L. 1234-9” (Article L1237-13 of the Labour Code). The reference amount is the statutory dismissal indemnity, and the Court of Cassation confirmed the mechanism in these terms: “Selon l’article L. 1237-13 du code du travail, la convention de rupture définit les conditions de celle-ci, notamment le montant de l’indemnité spécifique de rupture conventionnelle qui ne peut pas être inférieur à celui de l’indemnité prévue à l’article L. 1234-9 du code du travail.” (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, 30 September 2020, appeal 19-15.675). The same decision adds the regulatory detail that founders often miss: “Les articles R. 1234-1, R. 1234-2 et R. 1234-4 du code du travail, pris en application de l’article L. 1234-9 du code du travail auquel ils font référence, déterminent le taux et les modalités de cette indemnité de licenciement.” In that case the employee argued for a more generous calculation borrowed from a public-sector decree; the Court answered that only the Labour Code scale counts for the floor. The method is therefore fixed and must be followed in order.

Step one is eligibility for the floor. The statute provides that “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.” (Article L1234-9 of the Labour Code). Below eight months of continuous service, no statutory minimum applies, but the agreement must still state an amount, and offering a token euro signals an imposed deal; above eight months, compute the floor exactly. Step two is the rate: “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.” (Article R1234-2 of the Labour Code). Step three is the pro rata rule for incomplete years: “L’indemnité de licenciement prévue à l’article L. 1234-9 ne peut être inférieure à une somme calculée par année de service dans l’entreprise et tenant compte des mois de service accomplis au-delà des années pleines. En cas d’année incomplète, l’indemnité est calculée proportionnellement au nombre de mois complets.” (Article R1234-1 of the Labour Code). Step four is the reference salary, the most technical part: the average of the last twelve months of gross pay, or, if more favourable to the employee, the average of the last three months with annual bonuses pro rated, including base salary, overtime, contractual bonuses and benefits in kind, but excluding mere expense reimbursements. With a first hire on 3,000 euros gross per month and fourteen months of service, the floor is roughly 3,000 multiplied by one quarter multiplied by fourteen twelfths, around 875 euros; with three years of service at the same salary, it is 3,000 multiplied by one quarter multiplied by three, or 2,250 euros. These are minimums, not targets: in a negotiated exit the employee will ask for more, often one to three months per year of service, and the tax-efficient zone usually sits between the floor and the higheruncapped negotiated figure, because the portion above the floor follows different social and tax treatment that your payroll provider must model before you sign.

Step five is the check most files fail: the collective agreement. Many sector agreements, known as conventions collectives, provide a dismissal indemnity more generous than the statute, and the floor follows the more generous scale. Before signing, ask your payroll provider or accountant for the applicable agreement, the exact article on dismissal indemnity, and a written computation. The administration refuses approval when the stated amount sits below the applicable minimum, and the refusal letter cites that ground explicitly. Also verify the payslip history for part-time periods, sick leave, maternity leave and short-time work, since each affects the reference salary and the seniority count. A founder who computes on the last net payslip instead of the gross reference, or who forgets a thirteenth month paid in December, understates the floor and guarantees a refusal six weeks later. Readers managing an employee whose hours already drift beyond the contract should also review our guide on overtime, the 35-hour week and time records for a first hire, because unpaid overtime claimed after the separation inflates the reference salary retroactively. Finally, anticipate the social treatment: the specific indemnity is declared through the DSN (déclaration sociale nominative, the monthly online payroll return) and reported to URSSAF (union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales, the body collecting employer social contributions); the portion up to the statutory or agreement minimum is largely exempt within limits, while the surplus bears the general social contribution and income tax under conditions that change regularly, so have the net cost simulated before the meeting rather than after the signature. Budget one further employer cost that surprises foreign founders: the Social Security Code provides that “Les revenus d’activité assujettis à la contribution mentionnée à l’article L. 136-1 et exclus de l’assiette des cotisations de sécurité sociale définie au premier alinéa de l’article L. 242-1 du présent code et au deuxième alinéa de l’article L. 741-10 du code rural et de la pêche maritime sont soumis à une contribution à la charge de l’employeur” (Article L137-15 of the Social Security Code). In practice, the exempt portion of the specific indemnity therefore carries an employer-only levy whose rate and ceilings move with financing laws, and your payroll provider must show it as a separate line in the pre-signature simulation, because on large negotiated packages it can outweigh the difference between your first offer and the employee’s demand.

II. How to obtain approval and what to do when the plan fails

Signature is only the middle of the procedure. Between signature and departure stand two waiting periods and an online filing, and each has its own counting rule. Foreign employers typically confuse the two periods, file too early from abroad, and then discover that the departure date written in the agreement is void. The chronology below keeps the file safe, and the second half of this part explains the exits when the employee withdraws, when the administration refuses, or when the dispute lands before the labour court.

A. Retraction, online filing and the fifteen working-day instruction

From signature, each party has fifteen calendar days to withdraw, without giving reasons, by a letter that proves its date of receipt by the other side. Calendar days include Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, with an extension to the next working day if the last day falls on a non-working day. The period starts the day after signature: signed on Monday the 2nd, the withdrawal right runs until Wednesday the 17th inclusive, subject to the weekend extension rule. During this window, do nothing irreversible: do not file for approval, do not announce the departure to clients as final, and do not stop the payroll. A withdrawal sent on day fourteen by email with acknowledgment of receipt counts, and the procedure simply stops, with the contract continuing as before. Keep the signed originals and the proof of receipt in the file; the administration may ask for them.

Once the withdrawal window closes without withdrawal, the most diligent party, in practice the employer, files for approval, called homologation, with the administration. The Code provides that “A l’issue du délai de rétractation, la partie la plus diligente adresse une demande d’homologation à l’autorité administrative, avec un exemplaire de la convention de rupture.” and that “La validité de la convention est subordonnée à son homologation.” (Article L1237-14 of the Labour Code). Filing runs through TéléRC (the online portal for individual mutual-separation approvals), which generates the official Cerfa form (cerfa, the numbered official administrative form) from the data entered, computes the earliest lawful departure date, and routes the file to the competent office. The competent office is the DREETS/DDETS network: the Code designates the regional director where the employer is established (Article R1237-3 of the Labour Code), implemented in practice through the departmental unit, the DDETS (direction départementale de l’emploi, du travail et des solidarités, the departmental labour office), of the place of employment. For a Paris-based employee, that means the Paris DDETS within the Ile-de-France DREETS. The administration then has fifteen working days, weekdays excluding Sundays and public holidays, starting the day after receipt, to check the file: reality of consent, at least one meeting, assistance information, amount at or above the floor, seniority and salary figures consistent with the payslips, and departure date after approval. Silence at the end of those fifteen working days means approval is deemed granted, and the office loses jurisdiction; an explicit refusal must state its reasons, typically a procedural gap or an amount below the minimum. The Code also fixes the earliest departure: the agreement sets the end date, which cannot fall before the day after approval, so backdate nothing and let TéléRC compute the date rather than typing an optimistic one by hand. Print three copies of the generated form, have each signed and dated by hand by both parties, upload one signed copy, and keep the tracking number: it is the only proof of the filing date if the fifteen-day count is later disputed. Employers who cannot use the portal, which happens with certain foreign digital identities, may file the paper Cerfa with the DDETS, but confirm receipt in writing, since the fifteen-day clock runs from receipt.

Three filing errors account for most refusals observed in practice. The first is the amount: a severance rounded below the floor, a forgotten bonus in the reference salary, or a collective agreement ignored. The second is the date: a departure date earlier than the day after the end of instruction, computed as if the fifteen days were calendar days or as if filing day counted as day one. The third is inconsistency: seniority on the form different from the hiring date on the DPAE (déclaration préalable à l’embauche, the pre-hiring declaration) or from the payslips, job title mismatched, or signatures dated before the last meeting. Each triggers either a refusal or a request for correction that restarts part of the clock. Build the file as an auditor would: hiring contract, last twelve payslips, computation sheet signed by the payroll provider, meeting invitations and minutes, signed agreement in three originals, and the TéléRC receipt. When the administration approves, expressly or by silence, the contract ends on the agreed date, the balance of all accounts is paid, and the closing documents follow: final payslip, certificate of employment, balance receipt, and the France Travail certificate (attestation France Travail, the employer certificate allowing the employee to claim benefits from France Travail, the public employment and benefits body, formerly Pôle emploi). If your company is simultaneously under contribution control, coordinate early, since our guide on URSSAF audits, assessments and challenges from abroad explains how payroll corrections interact with separation payments.

B. Refusal, labour-court challenge and fallback routes when separation fails

A refusal is not the end of the story, but it suspends the departure. The administration states its reasons, and the parties may correct and refile a new compliant agreement, or abandon the mutual route. There is no separate administrative appeal against the refusal that would bypass the courts: the Code channels every dispute about the agreement, the approval or the refusal to the labour court, the conseil de prud’hommes (the elected employment tribunal hearing individual disputes), to the exclusion of any other administrative or judicial challenge. And the clock is short: “Le recours juridictionnel doit être formé, à peine d’irrecevabilité, avant l’expiration d’un délai de douze mois à compter de la date d’homologation de la convention.” (Article L1237-14 of the Labour Code). Either side can sue within those twelve months. The employee typically seeks cancellation for vitiated consent, fraud or breach of the protective procedure, aiming at reclassification as a dismissal without real and serious cause with the associated damages, while the employer typically defends the file or, less often, challenges an employee who refuses to leave on the agreed date. For a Paris employee, the competent court is the Paris labour court, with conciliation first, then judgment, in French, with representation rules that a foreign founder should organise through counsel rather than improvising by video link.

Cancellation, when granted, is retroactive and expensive, which is why the upstream precautions in part I matter more than any argument after the fact. A cancelled agreement is treated as a dismissal without real and serious cause: the employee can claim reinstatement or, more commonly, damages within the statutory scale, plus back pay for the period, reimbursement of unemployment benefits to the bodies concerned, and corrections to all closing documents. Against that risk, the employer who kept meeting minutes, proof of information on assistance, a compliant computation sheet and consistent payslips can show genuine consent and a fair amount, which is exactly what the approval file already contained. Conversely, the employer who filed an understated amount or skipped the meeting faces both refusal upstream and cancellation downstream. Note the asymmetry that surprises foreign founders: unlike a dismissal, where the employer must state precise grounds that the court reviews, the mutual separation needs no ground at all, but it needs perfect consent and a perfect amount. The control moved from the reason to the process.

When the mutual route collapses, three fallback paths exist, and the choice depends on why it collapsed. If the employee withdrew within the fifteen days or refused to sign at all, the contract simply continues; consider whether the probation route is still open for a very recent hire, as explained in our guide on ending probation and managing the trial period from abroad, or whether a properly grounded dismissal is appropriate, following the procedure described in our guide on dismissal procedure, notice and severance for misconduct from abroad. Never present the dismissal as the punishment for refusing the mutual deal: the timeline would prove the retaliation and taint both procedures. If the administration refused for an amount below the floor, renegotiate the figure and sign a corrected agreement rather than litigating the refusal, since the court applies the same floor and the delay costs more than the difference. If the relationship has become contentious, with grievances, sick leave or a formal complaint, pause and take advice before proposing anything: a mutual agreement signed the week after a harassment complaint, without visible negotiation and at the bare minimum, invites the exact cancellation claim the 2019 case law frames around genuine consent. In every scenario, keep paying the salary, keep declaring through the DSN, and keep the employee informed in writing; the contract lives until a valid separation ends it, and silence from abroad reads as abandonment. Done correctly, the rupture conventionnelle remains the kindest and cheapest exit for a first hire that did not work out: a negotiated amount, an approved date, benefits for the employee through France Travail, and a closed file for a founder who can return to building the business.

Conclusion

A rupture conventionnelle signed from abroad succeeds on three pillars: demonstrably genuine consent built through real meetings and documented information, a severance amount computed to the euro against the statutory scale and the collective agreement, and a filing calendar that respects fifteen calendar days of possible withdrawal followed by fifteen working days of administrative instruction. Miss one pillar and the file falls, either at the approval office or a year later before the labour court. Prepare the meetings in writing, have the payroll provider certify the computation, file through TéléRC with the Paris DDETS when the employee works in Paris, and keep every receipt until the twelve-month challenge period expires. The mutual exit then delivers what both sides need: the employee leaves with money and benefit rights, and the foreign founder closes the first hiring chapter without creating the second dispute.