temps de présence

17:56 May 6, 2020 

@Daryo - In reference to your quote:
Whoever wrote this contract avoided like the plague any mention of "work" or "employment" when talking of "une période d'essai"

Firstly, you don't have access to the entire contract, so you haven't read the rest of it and you can't be sure. Secondly, read the text again:

La période d'essai peut être rompue par l'employeur ...

If there's an employeur, there's an employé. To suggest otherwise would be contrarian for the sake of it and ludicrous. An emploi is a job.

At most, I would agree that you could translate it like this:

The employer may end the probation period by giving notice, the duration of which will vary according to the contracting party's actual attendance time in the company ...

However, I've never seen it phrased that way in work contracts.

17:44 May 6, 2020 

I have never come across the notion of "time spent there to date" in a work contract. That is, in my opinion, a bit too vague so as to be confusing. Spent there? Where? Define "there." What if you work from home and from the company's premises? Will "there" be defined in the contract or should there be changed entirely? I think some commentators are fixating too much on the French word présence and allowing it to dominate over the practical meaning in English. Occam's razor = it's the amount of time worked at the company.

In work contracts, you typically talk of "time employed," as Phil mentioned, or the amount of time worked at a company. The probation period is still an employment period, and there is no controversy about calling it a period in which work was carried out. There is also no danger of future responsibility of providing work if the probation period is clearly defined in a contract.

The definition provided by ph-b leaves no room for doubt that it relates to a work contract and that it, therefore, involves the activity of work. There is no point in beating around the bush and calling it something else to avoid the fact that it involves work.

11:35 May 6, 2020 

On entend par présence effective dans l'entreprise le temps écoulé depuis la date de prise d'effet du contrat de travail en cours, à l'exclusion des périodes pendant lesquelles le contrat a été suspendu du fait de l'absence de l'intéressé pour maladie, accident, ou pour l'un des cas visés à l'article 14 concernant les congés exceptionnels. ( https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichIDCC.do;jsessionid=042B... ) In other words, from the moment the contract incepted and for as long as it lasts/lasted. It is far from unusual, esp. these days, for a work contract to provide for a probationary period. That doesn't mean the person is not employed during the probationary period, in France anyway - assuming this is the source country.

10:44 May 6, 2020 

I was thinking along the same lines as you when considering this @Daryo. It may seem like we are splitting hairs but I think it's justified when we are dealing with a contract of employment. I'll suggest the answer now for everyone to see.

08:40 May 6, 2020 

Whoever wrote this contract avoided like the plague any mention of "work" or "employment" when talking of "une période d’essai" (probably for some very good legal reasons!).

It's not the translator's business to decide that "how long he/she was present in the company" is the same as "working" or "being employed"

For all we know it's quite possible that during this "période d’essai" this person wasn't "working" at all but was going through some training, and the future employer wanted to leave open the option to part company with the potential employee if they don't show they are capable of following the training.

Point of method: these "little details" could make a not so little difference in case of litigation - they are hardly on the same level as some inconsequential chit-chat that could be lightly labelled "Non-Pro".

@ Chris Milne
you said it first, do you want to put your suggestion as your answer?

13:49 May 5, 2020 

'...depending on the duration of the probationary period to date'