Bill: right to leave for family reasons and professional redeployment

Back
Date:
26 Oct 2019

Newsflash

By:
Eloïse Hullar

Bill modifying the right to leave for family reasons and clarifying certain provisions relating to professional redeployment

Bill no. 7489 modifying articles L. 234-51, L. 234-52, L. 551-2 and L. 552-1 of the Labour Code relating to leave for family reasons and professional redeployment was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 10 October 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Bill”). The Bill modifies the right to leave for family reasons and introduces some clarifications about professional redeployment.

1. Changes to the right to leave for family reasons

The Labour Code currently provides that employees responsible for a child aged between 13 up until their 18th birthday can only claim leave for family reasons for a sick child if the child has been hospitalised.

The Bill plans to add an exception to this condition of hospitalisation if the child, from the age of 13:

  • receives a special supplementary allowance (“allocation spéciale supplémentaire”) in accordance with article 274 of the Social Security Code[1]; or
  • is suffering from an incredibly serious illness or impairment, as defined by the Grand Ducal regulation specified in article L. 234-52 of the Labour Code[2], confirmed by the child’s doctor.

In these two scenarios, the parent who is an employee would be able to claim their days’ leave for family reasons, even if their child was not hospitalised.

In addition, the Bill allows both parents to take leave for family reasons at the same time in both the cases described above.

2. Clarification on decisions relating to allowances paid within the context of professional redeployment

The current wording of article L. 552-1 of the Labour Code implies that the “Commission mixte” is responsible for decisions relating to defining the total compensation allowance and professional tide-over benefit within the context of the professional redeployment procedure. These decisions are in fact the sole responsibility of the ADEM (Luxembourg National Employment Agency), and the Commission mixte is only responsible for accepting or rejecting the request for allowances.

As a result, with a view to ensuring legal compliance[3] and clarity, the Bill is designed:

  • to clarify in article L. 552-1 of the Labour Code that the Commission mixte only decides whether or not to grant the compensation allowance or professional tide-over benefit;
  • to specifically add to articles L. 551-2 (3) para. 10 and L. 551-5 (7) of the Labour Code that the total amounts of these two allowances are paid but also calculated by the ADEM.

This change should help clarify the potential legal remedies available to members of the public. In particular, appeal against:

  • decisions relating to the total amount of allowances will be submitted to the “Commission spéciale de réexamen” as it is a question of a decision made by the Director of the ADEM;
  • decisions made by the Joint Committee about the allocation of allowances will be submitted to the Social Security Arbitration Tribunal (“Conseil arbitral de la sécurité sociale”). 

Bill no. 7489 


[1] Article 274 of the Social Security Code: “Any child under the age of eighteen who receives a family allowance and is suffering from one or more conditions that constitutes a permanent reduction or failure of at least fifty per cent of the physical or mental capacity of a normal child of the same age is entitled to a special supplementary allowance”.

[2] Article 1 of the Grand Ducal regulation of 10 May 1999 defines the following as an incredibly serious illness or impairment: progressive cancers and diseases requiring hospitalisation in an intensive care unit for more than two weeks in a row.

[3] The Bill helps clarify this provision even though a reform of the redeployment mechanism is under way (Bill no. 7309) that takes this point into account. However, the legislator feels that it is important to remedy “the current situation as soon as possible and pending the new texts, as it presents an undeniable level of legal insecurity, including in particular in terms of the legal remedies available to members of the public”.