Facts
Marc B., a plumber, performed several temporary work assignments for the placement agency T. SA. On December 19, 1990, he suffered a work-related accident and was unable to work at 100% until February 3, 1991, and then at 50% from February 4, 1991. On February 6, 1991, Marc B. filed a claim for unemployment benefits, starting from February 4, 1991. The Geneva Cantonal Unemployment Insurance Fund (Caisse cantonale genevoise de chômage) denied the entitlement to benefits, on the grounds that the claimant was not suffering any loss of work to be taken into consideration, as T. SA had not terminated his employment, and he could thus assert a right to salary against his employer. Marc B. contested this decision before the Geneva Cantonal Appeals Commission for Unemployment Insurance (Commission cantonale genevoise de recours en matière d'assurance-chômage), which ruled in his favor. The Federal Office for Industry, Arts and Crafts and Labour (OFIAMT) then filed an administrative law appeal.Considerations
The Federal Court first qualified the nature of the contract between the parties. It considered that it was a pure temporary employment relationship, with successive contracts and not a permanent employment contract ensuring income during periods of inactivity. Therefore, the insured person could claim unemployment benefits, provided that he met the other legal conditions.
However,…