November 5, 2024
Personnel Administration
New Procedure for Advance Verification of Contribution Regularity
INPS
The Italian National Institute of Social Security (INPS) has provided guidelines on the operation of “Ve.R.A./Simulazione Durc,” a new procedure available on its website. Ve.R.A./Simulazione Durc aims to enable companies to monitor and promptly address any irregularities. Access to the procedure is available following login. The platform allows users to review contribution-related data across all associated contribution management systems.
With the new Master Delegation, a single authorized intermediary is entitled to consult the data of the entire contribution profile, take action to regularize any irregularities in the individual management systems, and receive Pre-DURC notifications.
July 23, 2024
Social Safety Nets
NASPI Confirmed for Reinstated Worker if Compensation Does Not Cover Unemployment Period
Milan Court
An employee was unlawfully dismissed in 2018 and reinstated four years later, receiving compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary as prescribed by law. However, this compensation only partially covered the period of unemployment, leaving the employee without economic support for a significant time.
The Milan Court upheld the employee’s appeal, ruling that unemployment benefits (NASPI) cannot be revoked in cases where compensation does not adequately cover the worker’s financial losses. The judge clarified that the general rule of incompatibility between reinstatement and NASPI does not apply when compensatory damages are insufficient to remedy the harm suffered. This decision reinforces protections for workers who are victims of unlawful dismissal, emphasizing the need to ensure adequate income support.
September 13, 2024
Dismissal for Just Cause
Employer Cannot Delay Disciplinary Action
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee challenged disciplinary action and the associated penalty on the grounds of its untimeliness.
The employee, a bus driver, failed to inform the company’s local service department of delays during a route, causing operational disruptions and further delays. The company initiated disciplinary action nearly two months after the incident.
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employee, deeming the disciplinary action untimely. The Supreme Court, in rejecting the company’s appeal, reiterated that the principle of timely disciplinary action reflects good faith in the employment relationship. This principle prohibits employers from delaying disciplinary measures in a manner that hinders the employee’s defense or prolongs uncertainty regarding the employment relationship.
In cases of dismissal for just cause, the immediacy of disciplinary action is a fundamental element of the employer’s right to terminate. In this case, the time elapsed between the incident and the disciplinary action was deemed excessive, given the simplicity of the incident and its investigation.
October 24, 2024
Business Transfers
Contract Change: Business Transfer Unless Significant Discontinuity Exists
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee claimed the right under Article 2112 of the Italian Civil Code to transfer to the incoming contractor in a service agreement.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had ruled in favor of the employee, clarifying that a contract change constitutes a business transfer unless genuine discontinuity between the companies is proven.
The Court stated that discontinuity must involve significant changes disrupting the functional connection between the productive factors of the prior agreement. Minor changes, such as new uniforms or identification badges, do not constitute substantial modifications of organizational autonomy. This approach reinforces the presumption of business transfer in contract changes, shifting the burden of proof to the employer denying such a classification.
November 11, 2024
Dismissal for Just Cause
Disciplinary Dismissal Without Prior Notice: Reinstatement with Limitations
Supreme Court, Labor Section
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in disciplinary dismissals, the absence of prior notice of charges invalidates the entire disciplinary procedure. In such cases, the worker is entitled to the limited reinstatement provided under Article 18, Paragraph 4, of Law No. 300/1970 (Workers’ Statute).
The Court emphasized that prior notice is essential to assess the legitimacy of the dismissal and the causality of the termination. If the alleged misconduct is unfounded, simple compensation under Paragraph 6 of the same article is insufficient, and reinstatement is required, albeit with a limited scope. This principle underscores the centrality of the worker’s right to defense in disciplinary proceedings.
October 28, 2024
Worker Supervision
Employer’s Unlawful Order: Worker’s Refusal Is Justified
Rome Court
A bus driver refused to carry out a maneuver requested by the employer, deeming it contrary to the Highway Code and potentially dangerous for passengers, himself, and others. For this refusal, the driver was subjected to disciplinary sanctions.
The Rome Court annulled the sanctions, ruling that the refusal was justified due to the unlawful nature of the order. The judge held that an employer’s directive violating legal norms cannot be enforced, and workers cannot be penalized for refusing such orders. This decision reinforces the principle of good faith and fairness in employment relationships, protecting workers from orders that may infringe on fundamental rights or mandatory rules.
