Monaco top court upholds full pay top-up after casino staff job change

Monaco's Cour de révision has rejected the challenge brought by La SAM A A MONACOLegimonaco against a casino employee over a collectively-agreed individual pay top-upLegimonaco, confirming that the supplement survives a move to a better-paid postLegimonaco and that a 2015 amendment cutting it cannot be enforced against the employeeLegimonaco. In its arrêt of 5 November 2026Legimonaco the court rejected the employer's pourvoiLegimonaco, declared the employee's incidental pourvoi inadmissible, ordered the company to pay the employee 3,000 euros under article 238-1 of the Code de procédure civile, and ordered it to bear the dépens.

The dispute concerns the complément individuel paid to members of a groupe ferméLegimonaco under article 1.5 of annexe I of the Convention Collective Générale des salariés de la A hors jeux de tableLegimonaco of 31 March 2012, as modified on 1 December 2014. That provision preserves the individual supplement at the former base salary when an employee in the closed group changes posts, unless an exceptional individual situation is incompatible with that principle.Legimonaco The employee, employed as a changeur aux appareils automatiques, was appointed caissier manipulateur; the Cour d'appel had held on 10 March 2026Legimonaco that his supplement had to be maintained in fullLegimonaco and could not be reduced by the amount of the increase in his reference salaryLegimonaco, upholding the recall claim in principle for the period after 12 October 2017Legimonaco while ordering an expertise on the amounts due.

The employer argued that the guarantee only secures a minimum overall pay level reflecting the earlier situation, and that because the employee kept his previous remuneration of 2,980 euros gross, a substantial pay rise on the move made his case incompatible with full maintien. The Cour de révision disagreed. Setting aside as superfluous the appeal court's remark about pay rises, it held that the lower court, assessing the facts and evidence within its sovereign appreciation, had found no exceptional or particular circumstance and no situation incompatible with the maintien principleLegimonaco, and had correctly deduced that the acquired individual benefit had to be maintainedLegimonaco.

The court also upheld the appeal court's refusal to apply the avenant of 27 February 2015 by which the employee had accepted a reduction of the supplementLegimonaco. Comparing that text with the avenant of 13 February 2020 appointing him cashier, which the employee refused to sign and which did spell out the loss of the supplementLegimonaco, the court concluded that the information had been intentionally omitted in 2015Legimonaco and that without those manoeuvres the employee would not have consented to the cut in 2015Legimonaco. The consent given in 2015 was therefore obtained by dolLegimonaco, and the amendment is unenforceable against him.

On procedure, the court declared the employee's pourvoi incident, raised in his contre-requête, inadmissible, holding that the legislation governing proceedings before the Cour de révision contains no provision for an incidental pourvoi and that it did not satisfy articles 439 and following of the Code de procédure civile. The employer's own claim for 10,000 euros under article 238-1 was rejected since it lost; equity justified granting the employee 3,000 euros, with distraction of the dépens to Maître Charles Lecuyer. The appeal court's split stands: recalls for the period before 12 October 2017, paid-leave recalls and damages remain rejected, while the post-12 October 2017 recall proceeds to quantification through the ordered expertiseLegimonaco.

Legal basis: Convention Collective Générale des salariés de la A hors jeux de table, annexe I, article 1.5; Code civil, articles 964, 971 and 989; Code de procédure civile, articles 439 and following and article 238-1.