personnel

French translation: collaborateurs

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

14:18 Feb 20, 2018
English to French translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Human Resources / Propriété intellectuelle
English term or phrase: personnel
« [any claim arising out of] Contractor’s or any of Contractor’s **employees**, personnel, agents or subcontractors breach of the representations, warranties, covenants, obligations under this Agreement »

Employés et personnel dans la même phrase, ça me chiffonne parce que les employés sont censés faire partie du personnel et je serais surpris qu'il s'agisse de qchose comme « les employés et autres membres du personnel »

C'est toujours un peu délicat de dire à son client de revoir sa copie et je voudrais donc vérifier auprès de vous que je ne suis pas en train de passer à côté de qchose.

Merci !
ph-b
France
Local time: 17:06
French translation:collaborateurs
Explanation:
I think the distinction being made here is between 'personnel' = '(full-time) permanent staff' of the company — who may be assigned temporraily to this or that project — and any other form of people being 'employed' by the company in the specific context of this project — for example, temp. staff or people called in on short-term contracts; they are still literally 'employees' (= paid directly by), but they would not count as 'permanent staff' (sort of a bit like 'titulaires', I suppose)
Selected response from:

Tony M
France
Local time: 17:06
Grading comment
Merci.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
2 +2collaborateurs
Tony M
Summary of reference entries provided
Don’t Use “Personnel” in Contracts
Daryo

Discussion entries: 3





  

Answers


11 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5 peer agreement (net): +2
collaborateurs


Explanation:
I think the distinction being made here is between 'personnel' = '(full-time) permanent staff' of the company — who may be assigned temporraily to this or that project — and any other form of people being 'employed' by the company in the specific context of this project — for example, temp. staff or people called in on short-term contracts; they are still literally 'employees' (= paid directly by), but they would not count as 'permanent staff' (sort of a bit like 'titulaires', I suppose)

Tony M
France
Local time: 17:06
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 68
Grading comment
Merci.

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Chakib Roula: Dear Tony, we can then talk about "intérimaires" ??
49 mins
  -> Shukrane, Chakib! Sadly, I don't think so, as that would amount to over-interpretation.

neutral  Daryo: "collaborateurs" doesn't sound like a legal category / legal form comparable to employed / self-employed etc ...
1 hr
  -> Thnaks, Daryo! I believe it is — I certainly encounter it often nough in para-legal texts.

agree  surbeg
18 hrs
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)




Reference comments


1 hr peer agreement (net): +1
Reference: Don’t Use “Personnel” in Contracts

Reference information:
Don’t Use “Personnel” in Contracts
Posted on May 16, 2016 by Ken Adams

Recently I encountered the word personnel in a contract. Hmm, how does personnel relate to employees? I asked my usual employment-law resources and they replied that personnel and employees mean the same thing, although personnel is perhaps the fancier option.

But in my world, which I suspect is a narrower, more cramped, darker world than theirs, the sensible meaning attributed to words isn’t what matters. Instead, the question is how people use those words, and whether that holds the potential for a fight.

So of course, off to EDGAR I went. Here are two examples in which personnel is defined to include not just employees:

“Personnel” means the Affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, consultants, vendors, invitees and representatives of a party to the Agreement and of the party’s Affiliates.

For purposes of this Non-Competition Agreement, “Covered Party Personnel” means and includes any person or entity who is an employee, consultant or independent contractor of the Company on the date hereof …

Here’s an example of personnel defined in a way that would seem to refer to more than employees:

In the event that others are, or may hereafter become, associated with Consultant or are used by Consultant in connection with the Consulting Services (“Consultant Personnel”), Consultant agrees to …

And in this example, personnel includes one or more companies and, presumably, the personnel of those companies:

During the Term, MWLS shall provide, or cause to be provided, a sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced personnel (which may consist of employees, contractors or other Third Parties) as is required to perform the Services; …

For what it’s worth, that broader definition isn’t necessarily at odds with dictionary definitions. For example, Black’s Law Dictionary gives as a definition of personnel, “Collectively, the people who work in a company, organization, or military force.” I can work in a company without being an employee.

And this is from a company policy statement: “It is the policy of Price Group and its affiliates to forbid any of their officers, directors, employees, or other personnel (e.g., consultants) while in possession of material, non-public information …”

If some contracts define personnel to mean more than employees, it’s conceivable that in other contracts drafters use personnel to convey that broader meaning but without using it as a defined term. That means you have the potential for a fight over the meaning of personnel.

I haven’t found an example of a fight over the meaning of personnel in the context of a company. But I did find, for a example, a fight over whether a court-appointed receiver qualifies as court personnel (the court said the receiver did). So I can readily imagine people getting into a fight over the meaning of personnel in a commercial context.

And personnel has another strike against it—it’s a plural noun with no singular form, and there is, moreover, no other singular noun applying to an individual member of the set it denotes.

So I recommend that if you mean employees, use employees. If you mean something broader than employees, be explicit about it—don’t use personnel.

...
http://www.adamsdrafting.com/dont-use-personnel-in-contracts...

Daryo
United Kingdom
Native speaker of: Native in SerbianSerbian, Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 24
Note to reference poster
Asker: Merci.


Peer comments on this reference comment (and responses from the reference poster)
agree  Tony M
5 mins
  -> Thanks!
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:

Your current localization setting

English

Select a language

Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search