The company usage is a source of rights that is not explicitly provided for by the Labor Code, the collective agreement, or the employment contract. It arises from a repeated employer practice, and its binding force relies on three cumulative conditions established by jurisprudence. For employees, the difficulty lies less in the recognition of the usage than in its fragility: the employer retains the power to abolish it, provided they follow a specific procedure.
Remote work and meal vouchers: when usage withstands reorganizations
Internal restructurings, the massive shift to remote work, or the relocation of premises change the material conditions under which a benefit is granted. The employer may be tempted to consider that the change in context eliminates the usage. The Court of Cassation has closed this door.
In a ruling dated October 8, 2025 (n° 24-10.566), the social chamber ruled that the suspension of meal vouchers for certain remote workers violated the principle of equal treatment. The employer could not withdraw this benefit without first denouncing the usage according to the usual procedure. The mere fact that the employee works from home does not negate the collective benefit.
This reasoning goes beyond the case of meal vouchers. Any geographical mobility operation, transformation of workspaces, or extension of remote work can modify access to a benefit (transport allowance, extended lunch break, meal allowance). Despite this, an organizational change does not equate to the denunciation of a usage. The employer must identify the benefits concerned and, if necessary, initiate the formal procedure before the modification.
To better understand company usage in labor law, it is essential to distinguish this practice from unilateral commitments and atypical agreements, which follow different regimes.
Criteria for recognizing a usage in labor law
A benefit granted only once, even if generous, does not constitute a usage. Jurisprudence requires the fulfillment of three cumulative criteria, and the absence of just one is enough to deprive the practice of any binding force.
- Generality: the benefit must be available to all staff or an identifiable category of employees (workers in a workshop, managers in a department). A benefit reserved for a single employee falls under an individual contract, not usage.
- Consistency: the practice must be repeated over several periods. A bonus paid for two consecutive years may not be sufficient if the judge believes that the repetition is inadequate to characterize a lasting intention.
- Stability: the method of calculation or the terms of allocation must be determined according to precise and stable rules. A bonus whose amount varies each year at the sole discretion of the employer lacks stability.
The employee invoking a usage before the labor tribunal bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that these three conditions are met, which requires gathering pay slips, internal notes, or colleague testimonials.
Procedure for denouncing a usage by the employer
The company usage is not irreversible. The employer can terminate it, but unilateral removal without formalities exposes the company to litigation. The denunciation procedure consists of three mandatory steps.
The employer must first inform the employee representatives. When a social and economic committee (CSE) exists, this information is directed to them. The employer must then individually notify each affected employee. A simple posting in the premises or an oral communication is not sufficient: individual notification is a condition for the validity of the denunciation.
Finally, a notice period must be respected between the notification and the actual removal of the benefit. No text sets a minimum legal duration for this period. Judges assess on a case-by-case basis whether the time allowed was sufficient to potentially enable the opening of collective negotiations on the subject.
What happens if the procedure is irregular
An employer who removes a usage without following these steps remains obliged to maintain it. The employee can bring the case before the labor tribunal to obtain the payment of the amounts due. An irregular denunciation is not enforceable against employees, and the usage continues to have effects as long as it is not validly denounced.
Business transfer and the fate of existing usages
In the event of a sale, merger, or transfer of activity as defined in Article L. 1224-1 of the Labor Code, employment contracts are automatically transferred to the new employer. The question of maintaining usages in this context is more nuanced.
The new employer is not indefinitely bound by the usages of the former one. However, they cannot consider that the transfer automatically ends the existing practices. The acquirer must denounce the usages they wish to eliminate by following the same procedure: informing the CSE, individual notification, notice period.
This obligation creates a practical burden during restructuring operations. The social audit prior to an acquisition must list the existing usages; otherwise, the acquirer inherits benefits they had not anticipated in their budget.
Usage and collective agreement: the hierarchy of norms
A company agreement concerning the same subject as the usage replaces it, without the employer needing to formally denounce the previous practice. If the agreement is later denounced or expires without renewal, the previous usage does not automatically revive. The disappearance of a collective agreement does not bring back the usage it replaced.
Employees who benefited from a usage before the signing of a less favorable agreement therefore lose the initial advantage, with no possibility of going back. This mechanism encourages employee representatives to negotiate safeguard clauses when concluding agreements concerning benefits already covered by a usage.
The company usage occupies a unique place in the hierarchy of sources of labor law. Neither law, nor agreement, nor contract, it derives its strength from a repetition that the employer can interrupt, provided they respect a formality that jurisprudence applies strictly. For employees, vigilance involves the systematic preservation of evidence of the benefit received, the only means to assert their rights before the judge.
