What could explain differences in decision-making across French labor courts?
Thomas Breda (),
Claudine Desrieux and
No 1705, CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) from CEPREMAP
Uncertainty about the outcome of labor court proceedings is often singled out as a possible factor dissuading new hires. This uncertainty would be caused by the fact that similar cases brought before the labor courts would be judged very differently from one case to another, or from one jurisdiction to another. After having recalled the historical objective of the French labor courts, their mode of operation and their recent evolutions, we show that the decisions taken in those courts do indeed vary strongly from one jurisdiction to another. The source of this variability remains however uncertain: it can reflect both the arbitrariness of labor court justice and the fact that cases judged by different jurisdictions are of different types and seriousness. This article is finally based on the work of Desrieux and Espinosa to show that jurisdictions in which the judges elected by the employees belong to more campaigning unions do not take decisions that are more favorable to workers than other jurisdictions. This result makes it possible to rule out a possible source of bias that could have explained differences across jurisdictions in the share of cases judged in favor of workers.
Keywords: Labor courts; differences in decision-making; impartiality of justice (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 16 pages
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cpm:docweb:1705
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) from CEPREMAP Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Mathieu Perona ().