The professional usage in a company refers to a benefit freely and repeatedly granted by the employer to its employees, without any legal, conventional, or contractual provision obliging them to do so. Year-end bonuses paid for several years, an additional day off at the start of the school year, systematic granting of meal vouchers: once established, these practices create obligations that the employer cannot withdraw without formalities.
Consistency, generality, fixity: the three criteria that lock in a professional usage
A benefit becomes a usage only if it simultaneously meets three cumulative criteria. The first, generality, requires that the benefit applies to all employees or at least an identifiable category (all technicians at a site, for example).
The second criterion, consistency, demands regular attribution over time. A bonus paid only once as an exception does not create a usage. In contrast, the same bonus granted over several consecutive years falls into the realm of usage.
The third criterion, fixity, assumes that the calculation method or the conditions of attribution follow precise and objective rules. A bonus whose amount varies at the discretion of the employer does not meet this condition. As detailed by Business Futur’s definition of company usage, it is the combination of these three elements that transforms a simple habit into an enforceable commitment.
Usage is established without written documentation or particular procedures. This absence of formality at creation contrasts with the procedural rigor required to eliminate it.
Remote work and meal vouchers: the case law redefining equal treatment
The issue of professional usage has taken on a new dimension with the generalization of remote work. In two rulings on October 8, 2025 (case numbers 24-12.373 and 24-10.566), the Court of Cassation established a clear principle: the employer cannot refuse a benefit solely because the employee is working remotely, as long as the conditions for attribution are met.
The case concerned meal vouchers. The employer had suspended their distribution for employees working remotely after the company restaurant closed. The social chamber ruled that this suspension amounted to treating employees in a comparable situation differently, in violation of the principle of equality.
The reasoning goes further. The transition to remote work does not eliminate a pre-existing usage. As long as the employer has not formally denounced the usage according to the required procedure, the benefit continues to apply, even when the material working conditions change.
This case law compels HR departments to audit the benefits distributed before any reorganization involving remote work. Changing working conditions is not enough to extinguish a right built by practice.
Procedure for denouncing a usage in a company
The employer retains the ability to eliminate a usage, but only by following three cumulative steps. The omission of any one of them renders the denunciation unenforceable against employees.
- Inform the employee representatives (social and economic committee) of the decision to end the usage, specifying the intended effective date.
- Individually notify each affected employee. Posting or oral communication is not sufficient: the Court of Cassation requires personal notification.
- Respect a sufficient notice period to allow for possible negotiations. This period is not set by a text but must be reasonable in light of the benefit being eliminated.
If the employer does not follow this procedure, the employee can bring the case to the labor tribunal to obtain the maintenance of the benefit or compensation. The litigation risk is real: a poorly denounced usage continues to produce its effects as long as the procedure is not correctly followed.
Difference with a collective agreement or unilateral commitment
Usage is distinct from a company agreement, which results from negotiations with trade unions and follows the denunciation rules set out by the Labor Code. It is also different from a written unilateral commitment, which formalizes an employer’s decision but has a more regulated elimination process.
In practice, the boundary can be blurry. A service note written by management and applied repeatedly can be reclassified as a unilateral commitment rather than usage, which alters the conditions for revocation.
Preventive management of usages: best practices for companies
The main difficulty lies in the informal nature of the creation of a usage. A benefit can become binding without management having assessed its legal implications. HR departments and frontline managers are on the front lines.
The first reflex: document any recurring practice (bonus, day off, in-kind benefit) and specify, during each attribution, whether it is one-time or renewable. Explicitly mentioning in an internal note that the bonus is paid “exceptionally and does not constitute a usage” helps prevent crystallization.
- Conduct an annual audit of benefits distributed outside the conventional framework, cross-referencing payroll data and field feedback.
- Train managers on the criteria of generality, consistency, and fixity so they can identify risky practices before they turn into obligations.
- Anticipate reorganizations (remote work, mobility, business transfer) by checking which usages might be affected and, if necessary, initiating a prior denunciation procedure.
The transfer of a business deserves special attention. When there is a change of employer under Article L. 1224-1 of the Labor Code, the usages in effect at the transferor are passed on to the acquirer. The latter will have to denounce them according to the standard procedure if they wish to terminate them.
A well-identified and properly managed professional usage protects the employment relationship. Poorly anticipated, it exposes the company to costly litigation and a loss of trust from employees, especially when the termination occurs without notice or dialogue.
