Facts
In this case, the issue was whether a temporary employment agency (the defendant) must submit to a wage book inspection by a parity professional commission (the plaintiff). The plaintiff is organized as an association and has the purpose of monitoring compliance with collective bargaining agreements. The defendant is a temporary employment agency that, among other things, leases personnel to companies in the construction industry.
In September 2003, the plaintiff decided to conduct a wage book inspection of the defendant. The defendant resisted this inspection on the grounds that this task falls under the responsibility of the cantonal licensing authority for temporary employment, not the parity professional commission. This led to legal proceedings in which the plaintiff claimed the admissibility of the wage book inspection.
Considerations
The Federal Court concluded that the defendant as a temporary employment agency is subject to the wage book inspection by the plaintiff. It based this on the interpretation of the old law, i.e. the DGAA in the version of 1989.
According to the Federal Court, the old law did not expressly provide for the monitoring of compliance with generally binding collective bargaining agreements by temporary employment agencies. However, the systematics and legislative history of…