This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation
Expertise
Specializes in:
Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright
Law: Taxation & Customs
Law: Contract(s)
Business/Commerce (general)
Investment / Securities
Finance (general)
Economics
Advertising / Public Relations
Transport / Transportation / Shipping
Cinema, Film, TV, Drama
Also works in:
Law (general)
Patents
Insurance
Management
Marketing / Market Research
Medical (general)
Medical: Pharmaceuticals
Engineering (general)
IT (Information Technology)
Materials (Plastics, Ceramics, etc.)
Petroleum Eng/Sci
Internet, e-Commerce
Environment & Ecology
Aerospace / Aviation / Space
Science (general)
Human Resources
International Org/Dev/Coop
Accounting
Government / Politics
Ships, Sailing, Maritime
Military / Defense
Real Estate
Physics
Biology (-tech,-chem,micro-)
Chemistry; Chem Sci/Eng
Computers (general)
Electronics / Elect Eng
Geography
Geology
Tourism & Travel
More
Less
Rates
French to English - Rates: 0.12 - 0.12 USD per word / 50 - 50 USD per hour Spanish to English - Rates: 0.12 - 0.12 USD per word / 50 - 50 USD per hour Italian to English - Rates: 0.12 - 0.12 USD per word / 50 - 50 USD per hour Portuguese to English - Rates: 0.12 - 0.12 USD per word / 50 - 50 USD per hour
All accepted currencies
U. S. dollars (usd)
Payment methods accepted
Visa
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 1
French to English: PLAISE A LA COUR
Source text - French PLAISE A LA COUR
Statuant sur l’appel d’un jugement rendu le 18 mai 2005 par le Conseil de Prud’hommes
d’Orléans ayant débouté Monsieur Lacheny de l’ensemble de ses demandes après avoir considéré :
• qu’en 1998, « contrairement à ce qu’il tente de faire croire », Monsieur Lacheny n’était pas Conseiller Prud’homme, « mais était en 4ème position des suivants de liste de la Section Industrie, ce qui …….ne lui conférait pas de protection particulière au-delà de la période prévue par la loi concernant les candidats »,
• « qu’il n’est pas démontré que la société Capri-Codec était, au moment du licenciement, informée du statut de Conseiller Prud’homme de Monsieur Lacheny, qu’en conséquence, l’autorisation de l’Inspecteur du Travail n’avait pas à être sollicitée, et que la procédure de licenciement à l’encontre de Monsieur Lacheny est parfaitement régulière ».
• que le licenciement de Monsieur Lacheny reposait sur des causes réelles et sérieuses.
et sur renvoi après cassation de l’arrêt rendu le 12 janvier 2006 par la Cour d’Appel d’Orléans ayant confirmé le jugement entrepris en toutes ses dispositions et condamné Monsieur Lacheny à verser à la société Capri Codec une somme de 1 500 € sur le fondement de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile.
Dans son arrêt inédit du 22 janvier 2008, la Cour de cassation a ignoré la loi de modernisation sociale du 17 janvier 2002 ayant aménagé à l’article L 1441-27 (ancien article L 513-4, alinéa 3) une information en amont de l’employeur relative aux candidatures aux élections prud’homales et à l’article D 1442-14 (ancien article R 513-116, alinéa 7) une information de l’employeur relative à l’installation d’un salarié comme conseiller prud’homme.
Il appartient en conséquence à la Cour de céans de résister à la jurisprudence de la Cour de Cassation et de sanctionner le non-respect de la loi de modernisation sociale du 17 janvier 2002 en refusant le bénéfice de la protection spéciale au salarié ayant sciemment dissimulé à son employeur ses fonctions de conseiller prud’homal et ce d’autant plus que la Cour de Cassation avait amorcé un revirement dans deux arrêts rendus les 23 février 2005 et 6 avril 2005.
Translation - English MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
Ruling on the appeal of a judgment rendered on May 18, 2005 by the Labor Arbitration Board of Orleans that dismissed all of Mr. Lacheny’s claims after having considered :
• that in 1998, « contrary to what he tries to imply », Mr. Lacheny was not a labor board arbitrator, «but was in fourth place on the list of the Industry Section, which …did not afford him any particular protection beyond the period provided for by law concerning candidates »,
• « that it is not demonstrated that the Capri-Codec company was, at the time of dismissal, informed of Mr. Lacheny’s labor board arbitrator status, that, consequently, the authorization of the Labor Inspector did not have to be applied for and that the dismissal proceeding against Mr. Lacheny is perfectly in order ».
• that Mr. Lacheny’s dismissal was based on real and serious causes.
And on referral after quashing of the decision rendered on January 12, 2006 by the Court of Appeal of Orleans that upheld the judgment executed in all its provisions and ordered Mr. Lacheny to pay the Capri Codec company a sum of 1 500 € on grounds of Article 700 of the code of civil procedure.
In its unpublished decision of January 22, 2008, the Court of Cassation ignored the social modernization act of January 17, 2002 having accommodated to Article L 1441-27 (former Article L 513-4, paragraph 3) upstream information from the employer relating to candidacies for election to the labor arbitration board and to Article 1442-14 (former Article R 513-116, paragraph 7) employer information relating to the installation of an employee as a labor board arbitrator.
It is, therefore, up to this Court to stand firm against the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation and to sanction the failure to comply with the social modernization act of January 17, 2002 by refusing the benefit of special protection to the employee having deliberately concealed from his employer his duties as a labor board arbitrator, especially considering that the Court of Cassation had undertaken a reversal in two decisions rendered on February 23, 2005 and April 6, 2005.
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 46. Registered at ProZ.com: Sep 2008.
Expertise