An employee changes positions after three years in the same team. Their employer has not offered any training since their hiring. In case of a dispute, this oversight can be costly, far beyond a simple fine. Professional training in the workplace is not a bonus: it is a legal obligation enshrined in the Labor Code, with concrete consequences in court.
Adaptation to the position and job retention: two distinct obligations
The Labor Code imposes two types of training efforts on the employer, which are often confused. The first concerns the adaptation of the employee to their job. When software changes, when a machine is replaced, or when a process evolves, the company must train the concerned individual.
The second goes further. It involves ensuring the employee’s ability to maintain employment, considering the evolution of technologies and organizations. Specifically, an accountant whose job is becoming digitalized must be able to take training that allows them to remain competent, even if their current position has not yet changed.
The law of October 24, 2025 (law n° 2025-989) amended article L6321-1 to clarify this distinction. Judges now rely on this new wording to draw a clear line: the employer must train to adapt and maintain employability, but is not required to finance a complete retraining for a completely different job. Understanding the legal obligations of professional training allows for precise identification of what falls under the company’s responsibility.
Proof of damage: what changed in 2026 for employees and employers
Until recently, an employee who had received no training could obtain damages almost automatically. The mere observation of the oversight was sufficient.
The Court of Cassation tightened its position in 2026. The employee must now prove actual damage related to the lack of training. Simply saying “I was not trained” is no longer enough. It must be demonstrated, for example, that a promotion was missed, that a reassignment became impossible, or that a loss of skills led to dismissal.
Why does this change matter for companies? Because it does not absolve them. An employer who never trains their employees remains in violation. However, the burden of proof is distributed differently before the judge. A company that documents its training actions (certificates, programs followed, meeting reports) is better protected in case of litigation.
Professional interview and skills development plan: concrete tools
Have you heard of the professional interview without really knowing what it entails? This mandatory meeting every two years between the employee and the employer does not focus on performance evaluation. It exclusively addresses professional development prospects and training needs.
Every six years, a summary assessment checks that the employee has indeed benefited from the scheduled interviews and at least one training action. In companies with fifty or more employees, failure to comply with this obligation results in a corrective contribution to the affected employee’s personal training account (CPF).
The skills development plan replaces the former “training plan.” It is the document in which the company lists all the actions it plans to implement:
- Adaptation training, which is mandatory and conducted during work hours with pay maintained
- Actions related to job evolution or job retention, which follow the same regime
- Training aimed at skill development, which may, in some cases, take place outside of working hours with the employee’s agreement
The absence of a skills development plan is not sanctioned as such, but it makes it much more difficult to prove that the employer has fulfilled their obligations. In the case of a contested dismissal, a judge will look at whether the company had formalized its training actions.
The role of the CSE in training
In companies with a social and economic committee, it must be consulted annually on the strategic orientations of training. The CSE reviews the skills development plan and can issue an opinion. Ignoring this consultation constitutes an additional violation.
Training funding: mandatory contribution and complementary mechanisms
Every company pays a unique contribution to professional training and alternation. Its amount varies according to the size of the company. This contribution is collected by URSSAF and then redistributed through skills operators (OPCO).
Beyond this legal contribution, several mechanisms coexist:
- The CPF, funded each year for any employee who has worked at least part-time, allows for financing of certifying training chosen by the employee themselves
- The validation of acquired experience (VAE) opens the way to obtaining a diploma based on professional experience
- The retraining period (formerly Pro-A) facilitates job changes while remaining within the company, subject to eligibility conditions
The CPF reform planned for 2026 introduces a mechanism for agreement between the employer, France Travail, and the employee for certain training. The CPF is no longer a mechanism that the employee activates alone in all cases.
Safety training: a strengthened obligation not to be neglected
Workplace safety training deserves special attention. It concerns all newly hired employees, those changing positions, and those returning to work after a prolonged absence. It covers circulation conditions within the company, gestures and postures, and the conduct to follow in case of an accident.
This obligation extends to interns and temporary workers under the authority of the employer. Failing to comply exposes the company to increased liability in the event of a workplace accident.
An employer who regularly trains, documents their professional interviews, and consults their CSE does not merely comply with the law. They build a solid case in the event of litigation and simultaneously retain their teams. Training is not a checkbox but a continuous practice, verifiable at every stage of the employment relationship.