It will be trainer while being useful to the company

Six months in prison for his leader, 25,000 euros fine and 5,000 euros in damages per intern. This is the sentence recently suffered by a company which had confused students and free labour.

The facts date back to 2003. Alerted by interested parties, the Labour Inspectorate presents itself at the headquarters of a SARL for verification of the real situation of five "trainees". These are students who were welcomed in the business under the guise of a stage of more traditional convention, drafted on the basis of the type canvas offers the University. The model has been faithfully reproduced, article 3 of the convention indicates that the course has "essential object to provide the student a practical application of teaching by the University." It will be trainer while being useful to the company. The internship programme is established by the company with the responsible teacher.

During the investigation, it appears that there is far from intention to reality. Students report not received any practical training and show the inspectors their booklet home imposing schedules, dress and deadlines for the implementation of the missions.

Society has for object the realization of telephone audits. Or, surprise, on the organization chart on the home booklet, one finds that no employee is assigned to this function. These are students and them alone who have the burden of take it. To do this, it shall equip cards indicating very accurately the procedure. Given guidance, of course, no compensation since they are supposed to be formed.

An "abuse of vulnerability."

It takes no more labour inspectors to conclude to a tort of concealed work and draw up minutes, which will lead the company and the five complainants before the correctional tribunal of Paris. Joining the inspection work, the judges, after having acknowledged the existence of a State of subordination and found that so-called trainees did had seen, in return, no salary or benefits, condemn the Manager, physical person, with regard to imprisonment, and the company, legal person, in so far as the penalty fine and damages and interests (TGI de Paris, 31st c.)(, September 29, 2006, no. 0404.790.012).

This is the first time the precarious generation collective welcomes that a company is about false trainees, recognized guilty of offence under articles l 324 - 9 and l 324 - 10 of the Code of labour, in other words of the tort of work concealed.

But this is not, far from it, the first time that a company is criminally convict. Just four years ago (Cass. crim, December 3, 2002), the Court of cassation had been far more than the labour inspector and the tribunal de grande instance of Paris since it had sentenced the company to "abuse of vulnerability and dependence", that is what is called modern slavery.

On the social division, the axe fell also already but with consequences, say, less traumatic, the articles of agreement being simply upgraded in indefinite. Example, the case of this unpaid intern who, in reality, was no more or less, the work of a worker (Cass. Soc., October 27, 1993).

Despite still widely observed abuses, all of these jurisprudential warnings did not drop in vacuum as the equal opportunities Act (l. 2006-396, 31 March 2006) tried to give a start of status to students. Internships without agreement are now prohibited, their duration may not exceed six months and a gratuity is required for greater than three months internships.

The application of the law decree resumed the "Charter of student internship in business" between two Ministers, labour and Education, representatives of employers, those of the higher education institutions and three student unions.

Now, the activities entrusted to the intern will need to be specifically set out in the convention, the conditions of monitoring of the course, both by the official designated by the undertaking by the person designated by establishing school or University.

A mesh the still large but a net still.