Facts
The plaintiff [Z.] was employed by the company [X.] Sàrl as a welder. His agreed monthly salary amounted to 5'100 fr., payable twelve times a year, with the notation « part du treizième salaire comprise » (inclusive of the thirteenth-month salary share). The employer terminated the contract with immediate effect on 13 December 2017.
On 25 May 2018, the UNIA Unemployment Fund brought an action against the employer before the Labour Court of the Broye and Nord vaudois district, claiming 9'806 fr.20 with interest at 5% per year. It requested that its case be joined with the one the worker was about to bring.
On 28 May 2018, the worker brought an action before the same court, claiming 25'148 fr.38 as wages subject to social security deductions, the issuance of a certificate of employment, and the issuance of a wage statement for the period from 1 to 13 December 2017.
The defendant contested the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on the basis of the amount in dispute. It argued that the action for a certificate should be valued at no less than one month's salary (5'100 fr.), should be added to the pecuniary claims, and thus exceeded the statutory threshold of 30'000 fr. It also asserted that the claim was incomplete.
By incidental judgment of 9 August 2018, the President of the Labour Court implicitly ordered the joinder of the cases, accepted its jurisdiction and held the worker's claim admissible. He fixed the amount in dispute at 29'856 fr.07, being 25'148 fr.38 plus 4'707 fr.69 (12/13 of 5'100 fr.).
The Civil Court of Appeal of the Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on 12 November 2018 and confirmed the judgment.
The defendant lodges an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court by way of civil appeal and seeks a declaration that the worker's claim is inadmissible. The worker seeks dismissal of the appeal. The UNIA Unemployment Fund waives its right to take a position.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examines admissibility. The cantonal decision is an incidental decision on jurisdiction, which may be challenged separately under art. 92 para. 1 FSCA. By contrast, it is not subject to separate appeal insofar as it concerns the conditions for admissibility of the claim independent of jurisdiction, in particular whether the claim satisfies art. 244 CPC (simplified procedure). The appeal is therefore inadmissible on that point. For the remainder, the amount in dispute exceeds the minimum of 15'000 fr. under art. 74 para. 1 let. a FSCA in an employment law dispute.
On the merits, it is undisputed that the jurisdiction of the Vaud Labour Court is limited to disputes whose amount in dispute does not exceed 30'000 fr. (art. 4 para. 1 CPC), and that arts. 91 et seq. CPC apply to the determination of that amount (art. 4 para. 2 CPC). An action for the issuance of a certificate of employment is a pecuniary action (ATF 116 II 379 consid. 2b), the value of which must be determined under art. 91 para. 2 CPC and added to that of the action for payment brought by the same plaintiff (art. 93 para. 1 CPC).
The Federal Supreme Court notes that it is doubtful whether the worker and the Unemployment Fund form a simple joinder of parties, since they did not act jointly from the outset. In any event, the value of the Fund's action must not be added, as the joinder ordered cannot, to the detriment of the worker, result either in the court's lack of jurisdiction or in the application of the ordinary procedure (art. 125 CPC).
Where the action does not concern a sum stated in figures, the amount in dispute is determined by the judge according to objective criteria (art. 91 para. 2 CPC). The Federal Supreme Court reviews the exercise of this discretion only with restraint: it intervenes only if the decision departs without reason from doctrinal and case-law rules, rests on irrelevant facts, disregards essential elements, or leads to a manifestly unjust or shocking result (ATF 143 III 261 consid. 4.2.5;…