Contractor liability in France for a subcontractor's foreign workers

In France a company can be sanctioned over another company's foreign workers. Article L. 8254-1 of the Code du travail exposes to the same penalties anyone who knowingly uses the services of an employer of an unauthorised foreign national. Article D. 8254-2 requires the principal to repeat its check every six months.

That check applies to any contract worth 5,000 euros or more excluding tax. This architecture comes from Directive 2009/52/EC, which obliged member states to extend liability to those who commission work along the chain. France transposed it by creating a documented duty of vigilance, which shifts the debate. The question at an inspection is not whether the principal knew, but whether it asked.

The two checks to run

Two distinct obligations attach to the same 5,000 euro threshold excluding tax, and conflating them is the first mistake.

The first is the attestation de vigilance issued by URSSAF, certifying that the contractor is up to date with its declarations and contribution payments. It is required when the contract is concluded and then every six months until performance ends, under articles L. 8222-1 and D. 8222-5 of the Code du travail. It covers social security contributions, not residence permits.

The second is specific to foreign labour. Article D. 8254-2 requires the principal to obtain from its contractor the named list of foreign employees subject to work authorisation, with the date of birth, nationality, type and serial number of the document authorising work for each of them. That list is required at conclusion and then every six months until the contract ends.

A principal holding the URSSAF attestation and nothing else has met one obligation out of two. That is the configuration most often recorded in construction, cleaning and logistics, where the attestation has become reflex while the named list stays overlooked.

What the failure costs

Article L. 8254-2 establishes joint financial liability. A principal that has not met its duty of vigilance is jointly liable for the administrative fine incurred by the employer, for the removal costs, and for the sums owed to the worker, notably unpaid wages and allowances, calculated on a presumed duration of the employment relationship.

The order of magnitude follows from the amounts set out in illegal employment checks in France. On a site where a subcontractor employs six people without a valid permit, the principal's joint exposure covers six administrative fines, six sets of back pay and the associated costs, before the criminal question under article L. 8254-1 is even reached.

An injunction mechanism sits alongside it. Where the project owner or principal is informed in writing, by an inspector or by a trade union, that its contractor employs a foreign national without a permit, it must immediately require that contractor to bring the situation to an end. Inaction after that written notice ends any discussion of good faith.

Holding the chain in practice

Three habits separate the companies that pass an inspection from those that endure one.

The first is to treat both documents as a single contractual milestone. A clause requiring the URSSAF attestation and the named list to be delivered together, at signature and then every six months, converts a legal duty into a contractual one enforceable against the subcontractor.

The second is to reconcile the list against the people actually on site. A compliant list that does not match the site access badges protects nobody, because the inspector compares names on the ground. The reconciliation happens at site level, not at head office.

The third is to go down one tier. Vigilance bites on the direct contractor, but a site often carries three tiers of subcontracting, and it is at the second or third that permits turn irregular. A clause prohibiting unapproved subcontracting, with the same documentary requirement at every tier, is the only arrangement that holds the whole chain.

The direct employer's own duty does not disappear. It is set out in checking a residence permit before hiring, and the European logic of cascading liability is described in the Employer Sanctions Directive and illegal employment.

A company working with a dozen subcontractors is better served by centralising these two documents in one dated register, since the administration checks the delivery date before it reads the content. What Werklist handles on these chains is set out on our employers page.