When the apprentice is the victim of a work accident, the protective rules applicable to employees holding a common law employment contract who are the victim of a work accident apply even during the first 45 days of practical training in a company.
This is the major lesson of a decision recently rendered by the Bordeaux Court of Appealwhich strongly reminds us that the specific apprenticeship regime cannot neutralize the protective rules attached to work accidents.
In this case, an apprentice is the victim of a fall at his workplace and is ordered to take time off work. The next day, his employer notifies him of the termination of his apprenticeship contract, taking advantage of the option opened by L6222-18 of the Labor Code, which authorizes the unilateral termination of the contract within the first 45 days, consecutive or not, of practical training in a company.
The apprentice contests this rupture. He maintains, on the one hand, that it occurred in violation of the protective status applicable in the event of a work accident and, on the other hand, invokes the nullity of the termination due to its discriminatory nature, this being motivated by his state of health.
Protection already enshrined by the Court of Cassation
Table of Contents
The question asked of the Bordeaux judges was not new. The Court of Cassation has long ruled that an apprentice who is the victim of an accident at work benefits from the same protective rules as any employee bound by a common law employment contract.
However, it remained to be determined how these rules fit in with article L6222-18 of the Labor Code, which exhaustively lists the cases of early termination of the apprenticeship contract.
The primacy of legislation on workplace accidents
The Bordeaux judges decide clearly: the protective provisions resulting from the legislation on accidents at work take precedence over the special rules applicable to the apprenticeship contract.
They therefore recall that in application of article L. 1226-13 of the Labor Code, dismissal pronounced during the suspension of the employment contract following an accident at work is void.
Certainly, article L.1226-9 of the Labor Code authorizes, as an exception, the termination of the contract during this period, but only if the employer justifies either a serious fault of the employee, or the impossibility of maintaining the contract for a reason totally unrelated to the accident or illness.
An insufficiently characterized serious fault
In this case, this proof was not provided. The employer produced various certificates from customers and employees citing a lack of involvement on the part of the apprentice. The judges consider, however, that these elements, all the more fragile since the person concerned had barely started his apprenticeship, are insufficient to characterize serious misconduct.
The termination could therefore not be legally justified on this basis.
The refusal of support by the CPAM, an ineffective argument
The employer also tried to take advantage of the CPAM’s refusal to recognize the accident under the legislation on occupational risks, a refusal motivated by the reservations it had expressed.
This argument is rejected. The judges point out that in the event of a dispute, they are not bound by the decision of the fund. Their role consists of investigating whether, on the day of the disputed act, the employer was aware of the professional origin of the accident or, at the very least, of the employee’s desire to have its professional nature recognized.
The protection only disappears if the employer only learns of the professional origin of the work stoppage after notification of the termination. However, a precise examination of the chronology of the facts in the case judged in Bordeaux established that at the time when the termination of the apprenticeship contract was notified, the employer was fully informed of the accident and could not reasonably exclude any link with the apprentice’s work.
Heavy financial consequences for the employer
The sanction is commensurate with the irregularity noted. Due to the nullity of the termination, the employer is ordered to pay the apprentice a sum corresponding to the full wages and paid leave that he would have received if the contract had been executed until its end.
The judges based this conviction on article L. 1243-4 of the Labor Code, applicable in the event of early termination of a fixed-term contract at the initiative of the employer outside of the restrictive hypotheses provided for (serious misconduct, force majeure or incapacity noted by the occupational physician).
Points of vigilance for the employer
- Do not consider that the right to terminate creates an “absolute” right : the right to unilateral termination during the 45 days of practical training does not eliminate the protective status linked to a work accident.
- Securing proof of serious misconduct : subjective assessments or imprecise certificates are insufficient.
- Analyze the timeline rigorously : knowledge of the accident on the day of the rupture is decisive.
- Do not hide behind the CPAM’s decision : the industrial tribunal judge retains his power of appreciation.
- Anticipate financial risk : the nullity of the termination can lead to a penalty equivalent to the wages due until the end of the contract.
Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux, September 9, 2025, RG No. 23/00155
oOo
To go further:
Register for our session »Securing the apprenticeship contract: conclusion, remuneration, duration, terminations, financial aid, etc.” which is held remotely from April 13 to 15, 2026.
Subscribe to professional training fact sheets, THE reference for professional training players:
Sheet 34-19: Apprentices and obligations relating to health and safety at work (subscriber access)
