Facts
This decision concerns a labor law dispute between X. SA (the employer) and Z. (the employee). The employee, who mainly worked on site with clients in the canton of Valais, also performed administrative tasks for 10 to 20% of his working time at his home in Conthey. The Cantonal Court held that the employee could bring the case before the court of this place, in accordance with Article 34(1) of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Prior to the entry into force of the CPC, similar provisions existed in the Federal Act on Jurisdiction in Civil Matters (LFors) and in the 1988 Lugano Convention. The forum of the usual place of the agreed activity aims to protect the worker as the weaker party. Contrary to the former Article 343(1) of the Code of Obligations (CO), Article 34(1) CPC allows identifying a forum in a place where the employer does not have a fixed establishment.
Considerations
According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the place where a worker habitually carries out his work is the place where he in fact performs the essential part of his duties towards his employer. When the activity is dispersed across several places, the forum is in principle located in the place where the worker spends the major part of his working time, unless another place has a sufficiently close and stable connection with the subject matter of the dispute.
According to the case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the place of the usual activity is the one…