Well, we survived. First things first, the panel won't meet to decide their ruling on the case until December 15th. As I understand, they then mail us their decision, so we won't know until a few days after that at the earliest. And then of course there are always APPEALS, so it may not be over then anyway. But all that is to say that we don't know yet how they will rule on our case.
The session was scheduled to start at 1 p.m. We were scheduled as the 10th of 12 cases (poo; of course one doesn't want to go that late in the session when everyone's tired). Finally at about 1:25, the President of the panel came out and told us that one of the four members could not come this afternoon -- which would have cancelled all the afternoon's hearings -- but that they had found a substitute. So we would have to wait, but at least they would hear the cases. In the meantime they called roll and took down everyone's information to confirm who was there and who wanted a delay (the president heartily scolded some lawyers present who asked for a delay - and they won't get their day in court now until JUNE 2009!). Then the president, the greffier (seemed like a registrar or clerk) and the other panel member left the hearing chamber again.
So - they finally started hearing cases at 2:25 pm, almost an hour and a half late. The funny thing is that out of the 12 cases on the docket, there only ended up being five heard (and ours being the last).
Here was the set-up: A small hearing room with four rows of benches on each side of a center aisle; an elevated table at the front at which sat the greffier (a chunky woman in a pale blue or blue-green long-sleeved t-shirt) and the four panel members -- all white males, seemingly in their 50s and 60s (maybe one in his 40s). All wore the symbols of their office - a medallion hanging from a red and blue ribbon hanging around their necks. The fellow on the left, clad in some type of tweed jacket, was quite jolly and animated and had glasses and a mustache. Next to him was the President, who reminded me of my college roommate's father for some reason (maybe just because he was a lawyer?!), who led the hearings, asked the most questions, probed the most, etc. Next to him, a quiet man in his 40s, and on the far-right, a white-haired gentleman with dark black, highly arched eyebrows.
As each case was called up, the lawyers for the two sides, and, if he was present, the employee who was suing his former employer, came and stood immediately before the panel to present their arguments. The employee's side presented first. The table had been designed with a kind of half-circle enlargement at the front to allow the lawyers to place their papers.
Each lawyer donned his or her black robe, thus appearing equal before the court. A bust of Marianne, the representation of the French Republic, looked on from a niche to the right, behind the panel. Most times the employees' lawyer got about 20-30 minutes to state their case, and then the company's lawyer a bit less time. However, by the time they got to our case -- the last of the day, remember -- our lawyer got only 15 minutes, with the lawyer for the CIWBWWRN (Certain Italian Wine Bar Which Will Remain Nameless) getting the same. And where in all the other instances, at the end of each pleading, the president of the panel asked the employee if he had anything he wanted to add, he did NOT make the same offer to Marco - they wanted to get out of there! This didn't seem fair to me!
We'll hope that's because the panel found our case against the CIWBWWRN so convincing that they needn't tarry with personal statements. But who knows.
As I said, the panel apparently meets on December 15th, at which time they will deliberate and render their judgment. Of course, in order to arrive at a judgment, at least three members of the panel have to vote in accord (if it's tied, it's a hung jury). I don't know how often that is. The panels themselves are made up of two employees' representatives and two employers' representatives. In fact, the elections for the Prud'hommes councils are in early December, and the panel's president explained the absence of the council member by saying, well you know, it is the last year of the mandate . . .implying that this council member just was tired of serving, and who could really expect anything else. Well, I thought, maybe the people who had voted that person into office four or five years ago!
So anyway maybe by Christmas time we'll know what the panel's decision is. Of course, if we believe the judgment isn't fair, we can appeal, but so can the CIWBWWRN.
But at least today is over, and we've done what we can do. Poor Marco just left for work this evening; at least I get to relax here at home.
So that's the story of the day! Thanks for all the positive thoughts, prayers, and karma sent our way.