Collective mutual termination (RCC): agreement and process

Quick answer. Collective mutual termination (RCC) is a mechanism based on a collective agreement that organises voluntary departures, with no dismissal. It requires negotiation, notice to the administration, then validation by the DREETS. No employee can be forced to leave.

You are considering reorganising your workforce without resorting to dismissal, and you keep hearing about a "voluntary departure plan" or RCC. The term circulates widely, often wrongly, and the stakes are concrete: a poorly framed process can slide into a disguised dismissal, with serious litigation and financial risk. This article clarifies what collective mutual termination really is, how the agreement is negotiated and validated, and what we examine in client files before moving forward.

As an accounting firm, our role sits at the crossroads of employment matters, payroll and financial steering: we support management and its legal counsel to secure the mechanics of the departures, cost the real impact and keep payroll compliant.

Collective mutual termination is a mechanism created by Ordinance no. 2017-1387 of 22 September 2017, codified in Articles L1237-19 and following of the Labour Code. It relies on a collective agreement that organises terminations of the employment contract by mutual consent between the employer and the employees who volunteer.

Two features shape the mechanism:

• Voluntary basis. RCC excludes any dismissal. No employee can be forced to leave: these are chosen departures, within the framework set by the agreement.
• The collective agreement as foundation. Nothing happens without a negotiated agreement defining the scope, conditions and consideration for the departures.

This dual requirement distinguishes RCC from other workforce management tools and makes it a regulated mechanism whose validity depends on compliance with the process.

The most common confusion, in the files we see, is using "collective mutual termination" to describe either a series of individual terminations or a plan linked to an economic dismissal. Yet the regimes are distinct.

RCC is not a dismissal. This is a major legal and financial point: the qualification chosen drives the social and tax treatment of the indemnities, the redeployment obligations and the litigation risk. An operation presented as "voluntary" but which in fact conceals imposed departures may be requalified.

Setting up an RCC follows a precise sequence. Here are the main steps:

1. Decision to launch an RCC and information of the parties to the negotiation within the company.
2. Negotiation of the collective agreement defining the maximum number of departures, eligibility, indemnities and support measures.
3. Notice to the administrative authority (the DREETS) of the opening of the negotiation.
4. Submission of the agreement to the DREETS for validation.
5. Validation by the DREETS, which checks in particular the regularity of the process and the content of the agreement.
6. Implementation of the voluntary departures within the validated framework, then follow-up of the agreement.

If validation is refused, the operation is not frozen: a new agreement may be negotiated. The social and economic committee (CSE), where one exists, is informed, in particular when negotiations resume after a refusal.

Summary of the validation step#

The agreement is the heart of the mechanism. Its content is not open-ended: certain clauses are expected. Before signing, we check in particular for the following elements:

• The maximum number of departures envisaged.
• The eligibility conditions for voluntary departure.
• The termination indemnities, which cannot be lower than the statutory dismissal indemnity.
• The support and redeployment measures for volunteer employees.
• The follow-up arrangements for the agreement over time.

An agreement that stays vague on any of these points weakens validation and, downstream, exposes the company to individual disputes. Drafting precision here is an investment, not a formality.

In reorganisation files, RCC appeals through its "peaceful" image: no dismissal, chosen departures. That is a real strength, but it must not obscure the rigour required. The mechanism is only worthwhile if the company has, in front of it, a genuinely willing population and a manageable indemnity budget.

Our view is simple: RCC is decided first on figures. How many departures are targeted, at what full indemnity cost, with what impact on payroll and on cash flow over the coming months? Until that costing is set, the legal discussion remains theoretical. This is precisely where the accounting firm adds value, alongside the company's legal counsel.

The most frequently overlooked risk is not the refusal of validation, it is requalification as a disguised dismissal. If, in practice, the departures are not genuinely voluntary, or if the lack of volunteers leads the employer to apply pressure, the operation loses its basis. RCC rests on voluntary departure: the moment you move away from it, you fall into another regime, with the consequences attached to dismissal.

A second blind spot: the real cost of departures. The termination indemnity is only part of the bill. Support measures, redeployment, paid leave, final settlement, social and tax treatment of the amounts paid: the overall envelope often exceeds the initial estimate. Better to model it before the negotiation than to discover it after signing.

To make an RCC reliable, we proceed in steps coordinated with legal counsel:

• Costed framing. Scope, number of departures, full indemnity cost, effect on payroll and cash flow.
• Payroll preparation. Anticipating final settlements, end-of-contract documents and the payroll mechanics over the months concerned.
• Support to the negotiation. Providing the financial simulations useful for the discussions and for drafting the agreement.
• Post-validation follow-up. Monitoring the execution of departures within the validated framework and keeping the agreement under review.

Here we draw on our payroll and employment work, as well as our outsourced CFO and steering perspective, to connect the HR decision to the company's financial reality.

A Paris-based SME approached us after internally mentioning a "collective mutual termination" to cut a few positions. On review, the need actually covered two distinct situations: one negotiated individual departure and a broader reorganisation. RCC suited only part of the project. The useful reflex was to separate the cases, cost each scenario and direct management to its legal counsel for the agreement, all without presenting a forced departure as a voluntary one. The gain was not speed, but avoiding a false qualification.

For the organisational side of a departure, our article on managing an employee departure and handover usefully complements this framework. And when the move affects a company officer, the rules differ again: see appointing or removing a director.

• Documented voluntary basis. Keep evidence of the voluntary nature of departures; it is the first line of defence in case of dispute.
• DREETS, not DIRECCTE. Validation falls to the DREETS, which has replaced the DIRECCTE; make sure you address the right authority.
• Indemnity floor. Indemnities cannot be lower than the statutory dismissal indemnity: check the individual calculation before finalising the agreement.
• CSE information. Where it exists, the CSE must be informed, in particular when negotiations resume after a refusal of validation.
• Costing before signing. Model the full cost and cash-flow impact before opening the negotiation.

This framework is based on the Labour Code (Ordinance no. 2017-1387 of 22 September 2017, Articles L1237-19 and following) and on the validation role of the DREETS. For an analysis tailored to your situation, our firm, registered with the Ordre des experts-comptables d'Île-de-France, can work alongside your legal counsel. See also our legal advisory and payroll and employment services.