The subcontractor of Orange, Scopelec formalized Thursday, April 21, the preparation of a vast social plan which could concern 800 jobs. “The management announced the project to bring together the social partners (…) to prepare for the implementation of a PSE (job protection plan, editor’s note)” declared the spokesman of the company which presents itself as the first cooperative in France.
The company, which employs 3,600 people, provided Orange with the installation of optical fiber and the maintenance of the copper network, under a contract that expired at the end of March.
The loss of this contract, which represented around 40% of the Scop’s annual turnover, put the company in great financial difficulty. If Scopelec had been notified in mid-November of the termination of this agreement, the company criticizes Orange for not having communicated any warning sign on the loss of this volume of business in order to allow it to prepare as well as possible.
→ ANALYSIS. The tone rises between Orange and its subcontractor Scopelec
By November, 1,800 job cuts had been mentioned but “700 people have either been reclassified internally or have left for other companies (…) or have left the very field of telecoms”continued the spokesperson for Scopelec.
The company’s associate employees have published an open letter to Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen as well as to the candidates for the legislative elections. They call on them to act to avoid “one of the heaviest social plans that France has known for months”.
In the backup procedure for a month, Scopelec requests that Orange “really accompanies him in (his) social restructuring” by financing part of the PES and that the State shareholder “plays the role of impartial arbiter”.
The company also intends to appeal the decision rendered on Friday April 15 by the judge in chambers of the Paris commercial court, who had dismissed its request for an extension of the contract with Orange. She hears “assign Orange on the merits because the termination of the commercial contracts does not seem to us to have respected the rules of commercial law”.