在2023年9月6日的一項決定中，法國最高上訴法院的社會庭確認了神秘顧客報告在僱員解僱訴訟中的證據可接受性，但在特定條件下。

 

神秘顧客通常由公司用來評估客戶服務的質量，偶然間可以幫助揭示員工的不當行為。 這就是這裡發生的情況：一名神秘顧客發現一家自助餐廳的員工在交易後未提供收據，隨後提交了一份報告，最終導致該員工被解僱。

 

員工對前雇主提起了一場民事訴訟，挑戰其被解僱的理由。 然而，一審法院和上訴法院均駁回了他的主張，拒絕裁定解僱缺乏真實和嚴重的理由。 隨後，員工向法國最高上訴法院提出了一份申請，以質疑該決定的合法性。

 

尤其是，員工主張上訴法院違反了法國勞動法第 L. 1222-3 條，將雇主提交的神秘顧客報告視為可接受的證據。 該條第一款規定：「在實施前，員工必須明確被告知將適用於他們的專業評估方法和技術」，而第三款規定：「評估員工的方法和技術必須與預期目的相關」。員工辯稱，上訴法院確認他已被告知可能實施神秘顧客調查及該調查的「目的」，但忽視了對該目的確切性質進行審查。

 

最高上訴法院維持了上訴法院的決定，認為上訴法官對其決定提供了足夠的法律理據。 上訴法官觀察到員工在實施前已被告知可能實施神秘顧客調查，用於評估員工。 因此，雇主被認為有權利以此類神秘顧客調查的結果作為啟動對員工採取紀律行動的依據。

 

在法國，雇主被禁止在員工解僱訴訟中提供透過「策略」或「不公平手段」取得的證據。 因此，神秘顧客報告的可接受性取決於用於評估員工表現的神秘顧客調查是否被視為一種「策略」。 正如最高上訴法院在這個案例中提醒的那樣，雇主只有在員工事先被告知可能實施神秘顧客調查的情況下，才被允許實施用於評估員工表現的神秘顧客調查，並在民事訴訟中採用神秘顧客報告作為證據。

 

遺憾的是，最高上訴法院忽略了由員工在其書面提交的材料中提出的問題，即上訴法院是否應進一步審查神秘顧客調查實施背後目的的性質。 最高上訴法院的法官指出，上訴法院考慮了一份「解釋神秘顧客計劃的運作和目的」的員工資訊說明，但未核實上訴法官是否準確地歸納了該目的的性質，並評估進行神秘顧客調查是否確實與該目的相關。 然而，僅陳述員工已被告知預期目的而沒有準確指定該目的爲何，正如上訴法院所做的，從法律角度看似乎是不充分的。 這引發了對於在這個具體案例中，進行神秘顧客調查的行為是否在法律上具有相關性的疑慮，雇主是否遵守法國勞動法第L. 1222-3 條第三款的規定，并且雇主提交的神秘顧客報告是否真的應該被視為具有可接受性的證據。

 

---

參考資料：

法國最高上訴法院，社會庭，2023年9月6日，案號22-13.783。可於以下網址查閱：Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre sociale, 6 septembre 2023, 22-13.783, Publié au bulletin - Légifrance (legifrance.gouv.fr)（瀏覽日期：2023年11月28日)；

法國勞動發，第L. 1222-3 條。可於以下網址查閱：Article L1222-3 - Code du travail - Légifrance (legifrance.gouv.fr) （瀏覽日期：2023年11月28日)。

 

聲明: 這篇文章是原創作品，所有引用的文件、數據、照片和資料均已列在文章底部的「參考資料」部分。

 

 

On the Admissibility of Mystery Customer Reports as Evidence in Employee Dismissal Lawsuits

 

In a decision dated September 6, 2023, the Social Chamber of the French Court of Cassation confirmed the admissibility of mystery customer reports as evidence in employee dismissal lawsuits, under certain conditions.

 

Mystery customers are commonly used by companies to evaluate the quality of customer services, and can incidentally help reveal faulty behaviors by employees. This is what happened here: a mystery customer discovered that the employee of a self-service restaurant neglected to provide a receipt after a transaction, then submitted a report which ultimately led to that employee's dismissal.

 

The employee initiated a civil lawsuit against his former employer to challenge the justification for his dismissal. However, both the first-instance court and the appellate court rejected his claims, refusing to find that the dismissal lacked real and serious justification. Subsequently, the employee filed an application to contest the legality of this decision before the Cour de cassation.

 

In particular, the employee contented that the appellate court violated Article L. 1222-3 of the French Labor Code by regarding the mystery customer report submitted by the employer as admissible evidence. The first paragraph of this article provides that “the employee is expressly informed, prior to their implementation, of the professional evaluation methods and techniques applied to them,” while the third paragraph provides that “the methods and techniques used to evaluate employees must be relevant in relation to the intended purpose.” The employee argued that the appellate court confirmed that he had been informed of the possible implementation of mystery customer investigations and the “purpose” behind them, but neglected to scrutinize the exact nature of said purpose.

 

The Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, considering that the appellate judges had provided sufficient legal justification for their decision. They observed that the employee had been informed, prior to implementation, about the possible conduct of mystery customer investigations for employee evaluation purposes. Consequently, the employer was deemed entitled to use the results of such mystery customer investigations as a basis for initiating disciplinary actions against their employees.

 

In France, employers are prohibited from presenting evidence obtained through 'tactics' or 'unfair methods' in employee dismissal lawsuits. Therefore, the admissibility of mystery customer reports depends on whether the conduct of mystery customer investigations to evaluate employee performance can be considered a 'tactic.' As reminded by the Court of Cassation in this instance, employers are allowed to resort to mystery customer investigations for evaluating employee performance and can present mystery customer reports as evidence in civil proceedings only if the employee had been informed of their implementation beforehand.

 

Regrettably, the Court of Cassation overlooked the question (which was raised by the employee in his written submissions) of whether the appellate court should have looked further into the nature of the purpose behind the implementation of mystery customer investigations. The Cassation judges noted that the appellate court considered one information note for employees on the 'mystery customer' program “explaining the functioning and the purpose of such program,” but failed to verify whether the court had precisely characterized the nature of such purpose and assessed whether conducting mystery customer investigations was indeed relevant in relation to that purpose. Yet, merely stating that employees were informed of the intended purpose without precisely specifying that purpose, as the appellate court did, appears insufficient from a legal perspective. This raises doubts about whether, in this specific instance, the conduct of a mystery customer investigation was legally relevant, whether the employer had complied with the provisions of the third paragraph of Article L. 1222-3 of the French Labor Code and, consequently, whether the mystery customer report submitted by the employer should really have been admitted as evidence.

 

---

Reference Materials:

1. Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, September 6, 2023, 22-13.783. Available at: Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre sociale, 6 septembre 2023, 22-13.783, Publié au bulletin - Légifrance (legifrance.gouv.fr) (Accessed: November 28, 2023);
2. French Labor Code, Article L.1222-3. Available at: Article L1222-3 - Code du travail - Légifrance (legifrance.gouv.fr) (Accessed: November 28, 2023).

 

Statement: This article is an original work of authorship, and all referenced documents, data, photos, and materials have been listed in the "Reference Materials" section located at the bottom of the article.

 

 

by 黃愷蜜 顧問