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.
Cookie settings
fonder la présente action
Mise à la consommation
Nov 25, 2019 16:45
4 yrs ago
24 viewers *
French term

classé en Code du Travail

French to English Law/Patents Law (general)
"Le bâtiment à usage de bureaux est classé en Code du Travail."
Proposed translations (English)
4 +1 classified under the Labour Code
4 +2 subject to [...] under the French Labour Code
5 Filed under the Labour Code
4 is covered by the [pertinent provisions of the] Labor Code
References
Previous (and inconclusive) question

Discussion

AllegroTrans Dec 2, 2019:
And.... Is not the "defining" (i.e. of more than one type of building) effectively a "classification"? - viz. in order that the specific provisions of the Labour Code relating to that type of building then follow

Or is this all a big game?
B D Finch (asker) Dec 2, 2019:
@Eliza Yes: "indoor or outdoor ", which includes buildings. Once the building is defined as an ERT, by the Labour Code, it then proceeds to lay down regulations that apply to it. You don't often find lifts in fields or tents, the fire safety regulations that apply to buildings also don't generally apply to fields, tents or beaches and vice versa.
SafeTex Dec 2, 2019:
@Eliza yes but "define" = "classify" and not "covered"

"A building is defined/classified as a place of work if...."

"Cover" does not work in the above sentence as we are not talking about insurance for instance.

But it doesn't matter as the suggestion "classify" and the suggestions with synonyms for "classify" have a strong lead in agrees while your suggestion doesn't.

So hopefully, the asker will not be confused by your insistence on a wrong answer, especially as we all know you now :)
Eliza Hall Dec 2, 2019:
@SafeTex I posted that article of the Labor Code downthread, but here it is again. It does not classify buildings. It defines any location (indoor or outdoor, building or tent or field or construction site or beach or sidewalk or natural area or not) as an "Etablissement Recevant des Travailleurs" if that location is intended to be a place where people work or if people will have access to it as part of their jobs:

"Pour l'application du présent titre, on entend par lieux de travail les lieux destinés à recevoir des postes de travail, situés ou non dans les bâtiments de l'établissement, ainsi que tout autre endroit compris dans l'aire de l'établissement auquel le travailleur a accès dans le cadre de son travail." https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte...
SafeTex Nov 30, 2019:
@ Eliza Un bâtiment classé en Etablissement Recevant des Travailleurs est défini par l’article R. 4211-2 du code du
travail :
Eliza Hall Nov 29, 2019:
@SafeTex You asked, "So why did you disagree with Allegro Trans, saying "NO, the Labour Code DOESN'T classify buildings for use" (my uppercase)

You're misunderstanding again, I think. We all agree that it can mean classify -- "it" being the word "classer" in general, not the word as used here.

Of course it often is best translated as classify. But as used here, it's not, precisely because the Labor Code does NOT classify buildings.
SafeTex Nov 27, 2019:
@Eliza You have just said:

"We all agree it can mean classify. All I'm saying is that it's not the only translation..."

So why did you disagree with Allegro Trans saying

"NO, the Labour Code DOESN'T classify buildings for use" (my uppercase)

Why did you go back to an old post 414 days later and disagreed with "classify" with exactly the same words as above?

B.D.Finch argued for "classify" in this very discussion and you replied

"I understand why you'd draw that conclusion, but it's INCORRECT." (my uppercase)

So don't try to crawl out of it now by saying it's okay albeit not "IMHO the best one for this"

You've shot it down every time until now. Have the guts to admit for once that you were wrong.
Eliza Hall Nov 27, 2019:
Correct vs best SafeTex: "Everyone is telling you that classer = classify or a similar term and we have given you enough references."

I completely agree it can mean classify or a similar term. BTW, what do you think of the reference I posted -- the official EU Commission translation in which "classé dans le code X" was translated as "falling within X code"?

We all agree it can mean classify. All I'm saying is that it's not the only translation, nor IMHO the best one for this. Classer can also mean fall within or fall under, and when you're talking about falling under laws, regulations, etc., "falling under" is a synonym of "is covered by." X activity falls under Y law means Y law covers X activity means X activity is covered by Y law. Same meaning.

In EN we normally say "X thing or activity is covered by/falls under Y law." We don't normally say "X thing or activity is classified under Y law." That's just not how we would normally say it, so I don't think it's the best choice here.
Eliza Hall Nov 27, 2019:
SafeTex wrote: "If we take your suggestion and put in "offices" as subject, we get something like: 'Offices are covered by the Labour Code'."

Exactly. And if this appears on a page about safety regulations, there might be another sentence saying, "Public buildings are covered by the Construction and Habitation Code" -- meaning that's the code you would look at to know what the safety regulations for public buildings are.

(And here they are: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=8711...

SafeTex wrote: "But.. this misses the point cos we don't yet know what an office is"

We do, because we're adults who live in the world and understand basic words in our own language. An office is, among other things, a place that people work. Since it's a workplace, it's covered by the C du Trav. -- that's where you would look to find the applicable safety regs. But that is NOT where you'd look to find the definition of an office.
SafeTex Nov 27, 2019:
@ Eliza Hello
Everyone is telling you that classer = classify or a similar term and we have given you enough references. B.D Finch posted on this only yesterday.
The forum is to help askers and to work together to achieve the best solution.
You treat it as a court of law where you don't want to concede anything.
You give out systematic disagrees to certain colleagues when you have a suggestion up, and obnoxious lectures too telling people they are wrong. You do it even when they have a number of agrees and you don't (like with the question on "tolling").
It just rubs people up the wrong way and does not help the group.
Regards
SafeTex
Eliza Hall Nov 27, 2019:
@BD Finch - misunderstanding "'Un bâtiment classé en [ERT] est défini par l’article R. 4211-2 du code du travail'...So, it's classified as ERT under C du Travail."

I understand why you'd draw that conclusion, but it's incorrect. The C du Trav. doesn't classify buildings as ERT or anything else. The Code simply applies to any location (indoor or outdoor, building or not) where people work.

If people are supposed to work there, then it's covered by the C du Travail, so that's where you'd look to find the applicable safety regulations. If people live there (houses, nursing homes...) then you'd look to a different code. Either way, the C du Tr doesn't classify buildings.

But don't take my word for it. Here's C du Trav. art. R 4211-2:

"Pour l'application du présent titre, on entend par lieux de travail les lieux destinés à recevoir des postes de travail, situés ou non dans les bâtiments de l'établissement, ainsi que tout autre endroit compris dans l'aire de l'établissement auquel le travailleur a accès dans le cadre de son travail." https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte...
Eliza Hall Nov 27, 2019:
What the Code du Travail does SafeTex wrote: "The Labour Code classifies buildings as offices or not"

No, it doesn't.

Here is the Code du Travail. I'll leave it to you to point out where it does that:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITE...

To help you search, FYI "Quatri¡eme partie" is where the Code talks about safety/security regulations for places where people work.

Spoiler alert: you're not going to find any provision of the Labor Code that classifies buildings or defines or describes what buildings fall within (or in FR, sont classés en) the Code du Travail.

A single building could contain a ground-floor shop that's covered by the Code's safety regulations because it has employees, a 1st-floor apartment that is not covered by it (because residences fall under different regulations), a 2nd-floor artist's studio that does not fall under the Code, and a 3rd-floor artist's studio that DOES because THAT artist has employees. Then, out behind the building, there could be a small construction site that falls under the Code because construction workers work there.

It's not about classifying buildings. It's about making rules for any place that people work
B D Finch (asker) Nov 27, 2019:
Found something that looks definitive: "En France, il existe quatre types de classements de bâtiments :
Les Établissements Recevant du Public (ERP), Les Immeubles de Grande Hauteur (IGH), Les Établissements Recevant des Travailleurs (ERT), Les bâtiments d’habitation.
Le classement d’un bâtiment est défini à sa construction ou lors de son (ré)aménagement. Le classement est proposé par le Maître d’Ouvrage ou Maître d’OEuvre dans la Notice de Sécurité lors de la demande de permis de construire ou d’autorisation de travaux. Ce classement est confirmé par l’avis de la Commission de Sécurité, dans le cas où elle est consultée : construction ou aménagement d’un ERP ou d’un IGH.
.....
Un bâtiment classé en Etablissement Recevant des Travailleurs est défini par l’article R. 4211-2 du code du travail :
« Pour l'application du présent titre, on entend par lieux de travail les lieux destinés à recevoir des postes de travail, situés ou non dans les bâtiments de l'établissement, ainsi que tout autre endroit compris dans l'aire de l'établissement auquel le travailleur a accès dans le cadre de son travail. »"
https://www.cigversailles.fr/download/file/56196349-3d0e-4c7...

So, it's classified as ERT under C du Travail.
SafeTex Nov 26, 2019:
@Eliza If we take your suggestion and put in "offices" as subject, we get something like:
"Offices are covered by the Labour Code".
But we know from a previous question on Proz plus references here that this misses the point cos we don't yet know what an office is, so it's a tautology in this context.
The Labour Code classifies buildings as offices or not, or if you prefer, defines them, or describes what buildings/locations fall within the Labour Code or which building are subject to French Labour Code due to the fact that they qualify as offices. Nearly all of the suggestions that we already have, looked at in this way, are basically right.
That is also why several of us have pointed out that "assujetti", "régi" "soumis" etc. are not used but "classer" is.
There is one suggestion that misses this and it is yours.
Eliza Hall Nov 26, 2019:
@Ph-B: official EU translation, "falling within" @ AllegroTrans too. Just because "classer" can mean "classified" doesn't mean that is the correct translation here. But don't take my word for it; look at this official EU translation (Council Reg. No. 2433/2001 of 6 Dec. 2001):

"Le plomb sous forme brute... classé dans le code NC 7801 99 10, est exempté de droits..." = "Unwrought lead for refining... falling within CN code 7801 99 10 is subject to a duty rate of ‘free’"

FR: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2...

EN: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2...
Eliza Hall Nov 26, 2019:
@BD Finch: different term Your link is about how the Code de la Construction categorizes public buildings (for instance, are they theaters, covered sports facilities, parking structures, conference halls, etc.), not whether the safety rules for XYZ building are covered by the Code de la Construction, Code du Travail, some other code.

"Le terme établissement recevant du public (ERP), défini à l'article R.123-2 du code de la construction et de l’habitation (CCH), désigne tous bâtiments, locaux et enceintes dans lesquels des personnes sont admises, soit librement, soit moyennant une rétribution ou une participation quelconque, ou dans lesquels sont tenues des réunions ouvertes à tout venant ou sur invitation, payantes ou non."
https://www.prefecturedepolice.interieur.gouv.fr/Demarches/P...

And the link you posted uses "classé suivant leur activité," not "classé en Code de XYZ." It's a different use of the word classer, and a good example of how a single word in X language may have multiple different translations in Y language depending on how that word is used.
B D Finch (asker) Nov 26, 2019:
Classified or covered? "Les ERP sont classés suivant leur activité et leur capacité.
.....
"Exemple: Une mairie dans laquelle qui ne peut accueillir plus de 100 personnes en sous-sol ou en étage, et 200 personnes en tout, doit être classée:Type: W – catégorie: 5"
http://www.deux-sevres.gouv.fr/content/download/6460/47553/f...

That does seem to contradict Eliza's comments.

I still have the problem that office buildings are classified as "Type W" and perhaps all my text means is that the building has been assigned a classification (though it doesn't mention what classification). That seemed too bl***ing obvious to be worth mentioning, but perhaps not. It isn't a new building.

There are a couple of other occurrences:
"AUDIT
... d'un immeuble à usage de bureaux classé Code du travail"

Again, in a table setting out a summary of technical information on each of the lifts, one row, with the title "Bâtiment" has just "Code du Travail" as the entry in the column for each of the lifts.

It has now occurred to me this might be because in a mixed office/residential building (which this isn't), only the office part would be classified under the "Code du travail".
Ph_B (X) Nov 26, 2019:
Overtranslation? The source text is quite clear: the author decided to use classé en, i.e. placer une chose sur une liste officielle…, ranger dans une catégorie... and not régi, soumis. This is what must be translated. Nor is it legally inaccurate, either. Incidentally, as I said below, these buildings must be classified according to the criteria laid down by the Code before its provisions apply. Other translations may have the same end result, but translators are not allowed to change what the author chose to say. [EDIT: That's not to say, of course, that we shouldn't tell our client if we think that something's not right, but that's for the client to decide on the basis of the information supplied.]
Eliza Hall Nov 26, 2019:
How the Labor Code regulates workplace safety The Labor Code doesn't classify buildings. It sets forth the law relating to employment and the workplace, including safety regulations. It doesn't define regs in terms of the building, but in terms of two things: (1) is the location used as a workplace and (2) what does the location contain (max # of personnel there at any given time, whether any flammable materials are stored there, etc.).

The link I posted shows how it does that:

"Dans les établissements mentionnés à l'article R. 4227-34 [i.e., establishments in which more than 50 people are habitually present at one time], une consigne de sécurité incendie est établie et affichée de manière très apparente :

1° Dans chaque local pour les locaux dont l'effectif est supérieur à cinq personnes ..."
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEG...

Then it goes on to define what information the "consigne de sécurité incendie" has to include.

The basic takeaway here is that if a building is used as a workplace, then safety regulations for that building are set forth in the Labor Code. IOW, "A building used as offices is covered by [or "falls under"] the Labor Code."
SafeTex Nov 25, 2019:
previous entry Hello
We've had this before and the situation was that the Labour Code classified (defined) what an office was as this meant that office staff had to be trained in things like fire drills etc.
The bulk of fire regulations are however covered by the Code de la Construction logically
Therefore, classifier = classified and should not be confused with "covered". It is not by chance that the French use the verb "classifier" and not "assujettir"
Finally, if you look at the previous question, you will see that NO ONE disagreed with "classify" until today, when someone added a disagree 414 days after the question was posted. Guess who?

Proposed translations

+1
4 hrs
Selected

classified under the Labour Code

Unless I am very mistaken, the Labour Code classifies buildings for different uses, in this case for use as offices

Health and safety in France - DLA Piper REALWORLD
https://www.dlapiperrealworld.com › law
In France, health and safety is governed by the French Labour Code and the ... As regards the use of the building, some regulations will be applicable if the ...

ERP and IGH

Buildings are classified either as a Public Receiving Establishment (ERP) or a Large Building (IGH), and more specific regulations are in place based on this set of classification. These specific rules include standards for materials and kinds of installations used.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2019-11-25 21:49:40 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

French Labour Code Regulations | Cyrus Industrie
https://www.cyrus-industrie.com › reglementations › french-labour-code
... are defined in Book II, Title I, Chapter VI, Section 7 of the French Labour Code. ... R.4216-30: “Buildings and premises are designed or fitted out such as to ...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 4 hrs (2019-11-26 21:06:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Comment: I fail to see how "classé" can imply anything other than some form of classification. I haven't time to plough through the French Labour Code but my understanding is that its provisions (which mainly relate to such things as working conditions) vary according to the classification of the building concerned.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 4 hrs (2019-11-26 21:07:14 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

And of course, elf 'n safety...
Note from asker:
That was what I initially thought, but then I wondered why it didn't say <b>what</b> it was classified as. Which is why I posted the question.
Peer comment(s):
agree SafeTex : Yes, this is exactly the reason why "classify" is correct and not "cover" as I also pointed out in the discussion.
2 hrs
thanks
agree Ph_B (X) : Yes, they must be classified according to the criteria laid down by the Code before its provisions apply.
10 hrs
thanks
disagree Eliza Hall : No, the Labour Code doesn't classify buildings for use (see Code de l'Urbanisme for that). It covers every possible legal issue relating to work, including workplace safety; as such it provides safety requirements for buildings that are used as offices.
20 hrs
Strange to see that a native FR-speaker immersed more deeply in this than either of us says "they must be classified according to the criteria laid down by the Code before its provisions apply"
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Thanks AT. See the Discussion comment I've just posted and which shows that the Code du travail does classify buildings as ERT, which would cover this one."
+2
1 hr

subject to [...] under the French Labour Code

subject to workplace fire-safety regulations under the French Labour Code

Slightly rephrased and
close to Daryo's answer but the actual Code (regulation) needs to be included rather than inferred. I think that covers it all

I would not use "listed" or "classified"
Peer comment(s):
agree Eliza Hall
1 day 18 mins
Thanks:-)
agree SafeTex : i gave AlegroTrans an agree but I like this solution too.
1 day 35 mins
Thanks:-)
Something went wrong...
1 hr

is covered by the [pertinent provisions of the] Labor Code

Assuming this is about fire safety rules, as in the last "classés en Code du Travail" question that PhilGoddard linked to, it means that the fire safety rules applicable to this building are to be found in the Code du Travail. For example:

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idSectionTA=LEG...

As you can see at that link, the Code du Travail covers not only the employer-employee relationship, workplace harassment, etc. etc., but also the safety rules applicable to the workplace (the subsection in which fire safety rules are found is in Part 4 of the Labor Code, which is entitled "Santé et sécurité au travail").

My guess is the sentence will read better and make more sense to an EN-speaking reader if you include the bit I've put between brackets in my proposed response.
Note from asker:
Thanks Eliza. It isn't necessarily only about fire safety. However, "covered by" is what I needed. I wasn't sure whether "classé" might mean that it fell into a particular category.
Peer comment(s):
agree Timothy Rake
25 mins
disagree SafeTex : Start by asking yourself why the French does not use the verb "assujettir" or similar but uses "classifier" instead . No I won't change the error "cos it makes no difference here. The spaces are classified as offices and so come under certain fire rules
5 hrs
You'll probable edit your response to remove your error, but the FR doesn't "use 'classifier' instead." Classer is a different word, and "classer en" can be translated in legal terms as "falls under" or "is covered by" (same thing) XYZ code or statute.
neutral Ph_B (X) : I'm afraid this is overtranslated - even if the end result is obviously the same. See discussion (sorry - not enough space here).
1 day 2 hrs
Thanks for your thoughts. I disagree-- see discussion, for same reason :)
Something went wrong...
20 hrs

Filed under the Labour Code

The phrase under study indicates the premisses have been registered under the file that is entitled" Code de travail"
Peer comment(s):
neutral AllegroTrans : registered under the file that is entitled" Code de travail"? Have you any evidence of this?
6 hrs
Something went wrong...

Reference comments

4 mins
Reference:

Previous (and inconclusive) question

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/french-to-english/law-contracts/65...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 mins (2019-11-25 16:53:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It's to do with fire safety.
Note from asker:
Useful to see I'm not the only person who has been puzzled by it. I don't think it is specifically about fire safety, though that would be included.
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree SafeTex : Yes but someone has given a disagree there today 414 days after the question was posted to "classify", the only answer that had NO disagrees. I'll let you guess who it was.
6 hrs
neutral AllegroTrans : mmmm....not a useful reference
1 day 3 hrs
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search