No more preferential treatment: the two unvaccinated and suspended agents from the North hospital of Saint-Priest-en-Jarez (Loire) will be reinstated in the same way as their colleague, suspended for the same reasons, employed at the Center hospitalier de Roanne.
“The CHU of Saint Etienne and the CH of Roanne naturally took note of the orders taken by the summary judge of the administrative court of Lyon”, indicates the joint management of the two hospitals in a press release, this Thursday, recalling having provided in cassation. “Pending these legal steps, the agents are reinstated in their rights from the order”, she adds.
The recovery date still unknown
One of the two employees of Saint-Etienne, Marie-Josée Ribeiro, told AFP that she received this Thursday “a registered letter” from her employer announcing “the lifting” of her suspension taken on September 20. “I will therefore be paid again since the date of the summary judgment, but I am not told on what date I will resume my position in the kitchen,” she added.
She and her colleague were refused access to their workplace after showing up on Wednesday, October 27, with a health pass, in the presence of a bailiff. A third applicant had meanwhile been received by the human resources department of his establishment who had announced to him “a resumption of activity next Monday”, had specified the lawyer of the three agents, Me Thomas Bénagès.
Doubts about the legality of the decision
“The CHU of Saint-Etienne has taken note of the court’s decision and is applying it, but my clients do not know the precise terms of their return to work,” said the lawyer. These three agents believe that they are not affected by the vaccination obligation made to nursing staff, because they work in the kitchens of their establishment.
Friday, October 22, the administrative court of Lyon suspended their sanction and ordered their reinstatement pending a decision on the merits given the location of the central kitchen of the CHU of Saint-Etienne and the Center hospitalier de Roanne where they practise. He considered that he was in the presence of elements “of such a nature as to give rise to serious doubt as to the legality of the decision in dispute”.