An internship in a company, although constituting a work placement does not give rise to the conclusion of an employement contract.
In fact, there is no subordinate relationship between the intern and the employer. The intern is simply under the pedagogical authority of the employer.
However, if it should turn out that the internship has been diverted from its true purpose, the intern could ask for redeployment of the internship as an employment contract.
It is incumbent upon the person claiming the existence of an employment contract to produce evidence to that effect by proving the performance of actual work and a subordinate relationship; the latter may be established by a number of indicators and presumptions.
The basis for redeployment is most often the absence of training and the fact that the intern has been treated like an ordinary employee.
redeployment will be all the more easy to obtain if the intern has been assigned to the post of an absent employee or an employee who has been dismissed and if no tutor has been appointed.
The legal relationship between the intern and the training body constitutes a contract for the provision of services under which the intern registers for training and the training body provides a service.
The case law has held that a traineeship before recruitment with a view to facilitating the exercise of the envisaged profession is not to be confused with a probationary period or actual employment.
A vocational internship, which moreover must not be misused as a means of making the person concerned work, does not constitute the performance of productive and subordinate work, and the employer remains free to recruit the employee.