An alleged but poorly documented economic motive constitutes, in the eyes of the Tunisian social judge, the shortest route to a conviction for unfair dismissal. In a context of margin pressure, demand shocks, and restructurings, the Tunisian leader must understand that litigation is won or lost well before the termination letter.
A strictly regulated exceptional regime
The Labor Code, arising from Law No. 27 of 1966, establishes the principle that termination initiated by the employer requires a real and serious motive. The 1994 reform organized dismissal for economic or technological reasons, subjecting it to prior administrative scrutiny. This control is entrusted to commissions supervising dismissals, regional and central, whose opinion conditions the regularity of the procedure.
This framework reflects a legislative choice where the economic motive is not a discretionary management prerogative. It is a cause of termination whose reality, seriousness, and proportionality can be verified. The 2020 decree-law, which temporarily suspended force majeure as a ground for termination and the deviation from central control, reminded that exceptions are read strictly and that maintaining employment remains the guiding objective.
First precaution: prove the motive before invoking it
The burden of proof lies with the employer. Jurisdictions assess three elements: the existence of economic difficulties or a structural or technological shift, their causal link to the positions eliminated, and the seriousness of the decision in light of the company’s situation.
The evidentiary file must therefore precede any decision. It includes certified financial statements over several years, the evolution of turnover and the order book, cash flow statements, the trajectory of the wage bill, and, where applicable, elements demonstrating the technological shift. An isolated decline or a difficult quarter is not enough. Chronological coherence counts as much as the figures.
Second precaution: demonstrate the exhaustion of alternatives
