The school cannot make working conditions worse and then sack the teacher who protests

The Court of Cassation (order 27298/2026) has clarified that a teacher’s refusal to return to work may be justified where the authorities, having delayed their reinstatement, impose less favourable working conditions on them. It is not sufficient to cite unauthorised absence: the employer’s conduct and the practical obstacles created for the employee must also be assessed.

The case concerns a teacher who had been granted protection against compulsory retirement and had requested to return to work. The school, however, reinstated her four months late. In the meantime, her original teaching post had been allocated to another teacher, and she had been assigned to a different school, with a heavier timetable and lessons spread across two distant locations. Furthermore, some lessons took place in a classroom on the fifth floor, with no lift. This combination of factors, particularly given her state of health, made her return to work particularly difficult. The employee therefore refused to resume her duties. The school authorities responded by dismissing her on disciplinary grounds for unauthorised absence.

On appeal, however, the resignation was declared unlawful: the delay in reinstatement and the deterioration in working conditions were deemed sufficient to justify the failure to resume work. The Court of Cassation upheld this conclusion, declaring the administration’s appeal inadmissible. The point is not that a teacher is free to disregard service orders, nor that every change of location or timetable justifies a refusal. What matters, rather, is whether the employer has in turn breached its own obligations and whether the conditions imposed have a tangible impact on the ability to work.

For schools, the message is unequivocal: reinstatement cannot be reduced to a mere formality. Following a decision ordering a return to work, the management must act promptly and arrange a post that is compatible with the obligations of the employment relationship, without placing an unjustified burden on the employee. It is not enough to simply order an employee to return if, in the meantime, the post has been assigned to someone else and the new organisational structure makes the work more onerous. This case also highlights the importance of assessing the practical effects of organisational decisions: transfers between sites, longer working hours and barriers to accessing workspaces are not trivial details. They must be considered as a whole, particularly when they affect an employee’s health or their actual ability to carry out their duties.

Compliance with the rules must apply to both parties: teachers are bound by their duties, but the school must also honour the commitments it has made as an employer. For school leaders, the priority is to check the available posts and assess the implications of staff placements, ensuring that the return to work does not become a new problem. This requires very careful management.