On Tuesday 11 August 2026, Luxembourg's Chamber of Employees (Chambre des Salariés - CSL) highlighted seven recent employment law issues in the July edition of its "InfosJuridiques" publication.
The publication covers matters including senior executive status, sick leave, dismissal for serious misconduct, employment contracts, recruitment promises, bonuses and equal treatment for fixed-term workers.
The recent publication summarises and explains a selection of court decisions in simplified terms. The CSL noted that, in the event of any difference in interpretation, the original judgments remain authoritative.
Among the cases presented, the CSL provided practical examples of how Luxembourg and European courts have interpreted employment law in disputes between employees and employers.
Senior executive status and salary
The CSL highlighted a Court of Appeal judgment of 30 April 2026 concerning an employee whose contract classified him as an "exempt employee", or senior executive.
The employee had sought payment of bonuses under a collective agreement, while the employer argued that his senior executive status excluded him from its provisions.
The Court compared his remuneration with that of employees carrying out comparable work and found that his salary was only slightly more than 10% higher in 2020 and less than 7% higher in 2021. It ruled that such a difference could not be considered "significantly higher" within the meaning of the Labour Code.
The employee was therefore not considered a senior executive for the purposes of the collective agreement and became entitled to its profit-sharing provisions. The Court ordered the company to pay him €58,067.33.
Medical certificates and protection against dismissal
Another case concerned an employee who failed to ensure that a medical certificate reached his employer within the statutory deadline.
The Court recalled that, to benefit from protection against dismissal during sickness, an employee must inform the employer on the first day of absence and ensure that the employer receives the medical certificate no later than the third day.
In this case, postal delays meant the employer received the certificate late. The Court ruled that such delays did not constitute force majeure and that the employee had to bear the consequences, even though the delay was not his fault.
The CSL advised employees to send medical certificates electronically, by SMS or another modern means of communication as soon as they are issued and no later than the third day of absence, while also providing the paper version as soon as possible.
Unjustified absence as serious misconduct
The same case also examined whether an unjustified absence could justify dismissal with immediate effect.
The employee had been absent for four days without the employer having received a valid medical certificate within the required period. The Court considered that this absence, combined with the employee's relatively short eight months of service, was sufficient to undermine the employer's trust and make continuation of the employment relationship impossible.
The Court therefore upheld the dismissal with immediate effect.
Combining employee and company director roles
A separate judgment examined whether a person could simultaneously hold the roles of employee and company director.
The employee had signed a written employment contract before later being appointed as a director. Her employer subsequently argued that the employment contract was fictitious and that only the corporate mandate remained.
The Court found that the written contract contained the characteristics of an employment relationship and noted that the employee received a salary and payslips, was registered with the social security authorities as an employee and appeared in the company hierarchy under a managing director.
It ruled that, where a written employment contract exists, the party claiming that it is fictitious must prove this. In this case, the employer had failed to do so.
When a job offer becomes binding
The CSL also highlighted a case concerning a written employment proposal which offered a position with a gross monthly salary of €8,200 over thirteen months, meal vouchers, 29 days of paid leave, a company car and a €40,000 bonus.
The Court found that the proposal contained sufficiently precise information about the future employment relationship and represented a firm commitment. Once accepted by the employee, it therefore constituted an employment contract subject to certain conditions.
However, the parties subsequently signed another employment contract reducing the bonus to €20,000. The Court ruled that this later agreement had validly modified the original arrangement because both parties had agreed to the change.
Contractual bonuses must be paid
The same judgment also dealt with the employer's refusal to pay the €20,000 bonus contained in the final employment contract.
The employer argued that payment depended on the employee's performance and behaviour. However, the Court found that the contract did not make the bonus subject to any such conditions.
It therefore upheld the ruling requiring the employer to pay the employee €20,000 plus statutory interest.
Equal treatment for short-term substitute teachers
Finally, the CSL examined a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling concerning an Italian scheme providing teachers with a €500 annual electronic card to support continuing professional training.
The benefit was available to permanent teachers and certain substitute teachers employed for the full school year, but short-term substitute teachers were excluded.
The CJEU found that short-term substitute teachers could be in a comparable situation to permanent teachers because they performed the same tasks and had similar obligations during their periods of employment.
The Court ruled that the short duration of a substitute teacher's contract alone could not constitute an objective reason for excluding them from the benefit.
It concluded that EU law prevents such an exclusion unless objective reasons can justify the different treatment.
