April 29, 2024
Part-time Work
Shifts must be specified in part-time work contracts
Cass., Labor Section
The Court of Cassation has ruled that in part-time work, shifts must be clearly and consistently specified in the contract. This decision addresses whether, in part-time work, shift arrangements should be communicated immediately or can be indicated periodically with notice. The case concerned the interpretation of Article 5, Legislative Decree No. 81/2015, which requires the specific indication of the duration and timing of working hours in part-time contracts. The legislation allows for reference to scheduled shifts, but the Court clarified that this flexibility does not exempt from the obligation to clearly specify the shifts in the contract in the absence of elastic clauses. The Court stated that legal and contractual provisions are respected only if the shifts are specified in the part-time work contract, making it clear to the worker how the work will be performed over time. This decision is consistent with the obligation to ensure workers the ability to plan their work and personal life. The decision is based on a constitutionally oriented interpretation of the current regulations, which emphasize the worker’s right to plan a second job, also to protect their social security position. In this regard, the Court referred to the Constitutional Court ruling No. 210 of 1992, which highlights the importance of work schedule predictability for part-time workers.
June 6, 2024
Confidentiality and Privacy
Corporate emails: new guidelines on metadata retention
Privacy Authority
The Privacy Authority has approved new guidelines on the retention of corporate email metadata, providing a more precise definition than previous ones. According to the new provision, metadata includes only the technical information automatically recorded in the logs of email server management systems and client stations. These data, which include information such as email addresses, server IPs, sending and receiving times, and message sizes, can be retained for a maximum of 21 days without specific obligations. If companies wish to exceed this limit, they must comply with privacy regulations, such as providing notices, conducting data protection impact assessments (DPIA), and entering into union agreements or obtaining administrative authorizations, as required by Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute. Metadata are distinct from “envelope” information, which remains under the exclusive control of the user and is not subject to the 21-day limit. This distinction aims to balance the need to limit remote employee monitoring with the legitimate involuntary retention of information that passes through servers. The Authority also emphasized that many default email management software settings might not comply with Italian regulations. Companies will need to conduct a detailed analysis of the metadata collected and the time necessary for their retention to determine the necessary compliance with privacy and labor law requirements.
June 14, 2024
Working Hours, Leave, and Permits
Compensation must be paid for unused leave and permits
Cass., Labor Section
A worker filed a lawsuit against their employer, seeking compensation for unused leave and rest periods, as well as damages for physical and mental wear and tear due to the lack of rest. The Court of Cassation sided with the worker, noting that if the worker at the end of the employment relationship provides evidence of not having used the leave, it is the employer’s responsibility to avoid paying the compensation by proving that during the relationship, the employee was given the opportunity to exercise the right to paid annual leave, informing them of the loss, in case of non-use, of both the leave and the substitute compensation.
June 14, 2024
Individual Dismissal
Revocation of dismissal is valid if “sent” within fifteen days
Cass., Labor Section
A worker was initially dismissed for justified objective reasons and then, following the revocation of the dismissal and the retroactive reinstatement of the employment relationship, was again dismissed for just cause as she was absent from work for more than three days. The employee contested the two dismissals, arguing that the revocation of the first dismissal, sent by the employer on the fifteenth day after receiving the dismissal contestation but received by the worker only on the sixteenth day, was untimely. The court of appeal, confirming the first instance ruling, dismissed the claim against the two dismissals. The Court of Cassation also dismissed the worker’s claim, noting that to trigger the “restorative effect” of the employment relationship through the revocation of the imposed dismissal, it is sufficient that within fifteen days from the communication to the employer of the dismissal contestation, the “mere sending” of the revocation to the employee is completed and not also its receipt by the latter.
June 18, 2024
Inspections and Penalties
New calculation methods for penalties in case of illegal outsourcing
INL
The National Labor Inspectorate has clarified that when applying penalties for illegal or fraudulent outsourcing, the aggravating factors of recidivism and child exploitation must be considered. In particular, for recidivism, it is necessary to distinguish between “simple recidivism” and “specific recidivism.” In the first case, it refers to the employer who, in the previous three years, has been subject to any definitive sanctioning measures. In such cases, the increases provided by law are doubled, from 20% to 40%, and the fine increases to €84.00 for each worker employed and for each working day. In the second case, “specific recidivism,” it refers to situations where the employer has already been subject to criminal sanctions. In this case, the total penalty is €100.80 for each worker employed and for each working day. Regarding the second aggravating factor, in the presence of illegal contracting in which the illegal employment of minors is found, the offender who complies with the prescribed order will be allowed to pay a quarter of the fixed fine of €432.00 per day and per worker. In both aggravated cases, the amount to be imposed in practice must take into account the minimum limit of €5,000 and a maximum of €50,000.
June 14, 2024
Incentives
Contribution exemption for hiring women with the “freedom income”
INPS
INPS has implemented the contribution exemption for hiring women beneficiaries of the so-called “freedom income” (“RdL”). The law provides that all private employers (including those in agriculture) who hire unemployed women, victims of violence, and beneficiaries of the freedom income, can benefit from a contribution reduction. The incentive applies to permanent, fixed-term full-time, or part-time hires, as well as the stabilization of fixed-term contracts. It also includes subordinate employment relationships established in implementation of the associative bond with a work cooperative and relationships established for the purpose of temporary employment. Domestic workers and apprentices are excluded. INPS specified that the freedom income must be actually received and not just requested. However, during the initial application phase, a derogation is provided: for 2024, the incentives can also be granted for the hiring of women who received the RdL in 2023.
March 2, 2024
Personnel Administration
The (upcoming) INL compliance list: benefits for companies
“PNRR Decree”
The PNRR decree introduced the “INL compliance list,” designed to reward companies that are found to be in compliance after an inspection by the National Labor Inspectorate (INL). This tool offers a 12-month “immunity” from further inspections on the same matters subject to verification. Inclusion in the list not only guarantees practical advantages but also a significant reputational effect. The compliance list is accessible to everyone through the INL institutional website, with the consent of the inspected company’s responsible party. The inspection can cover any aspect of labor regulations, including health and safety. Companies found to be compliant are exempt from further checks for one year on the same aspects already verified. The immunity is not absolute. New inspections can be carried out at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, a worker, or for health and safety issues. Additionally, the compliance certification can be revoked if new violations related to previously examined facts emerge. Inclusion in the compliance list gives companies an important reputational advantage. Companies that need to rely on third parties for contracted or subcontracted work will benefit from the compliance list, being able to choose suppliers with a certified reputation. This tool offers an additional guarantee of reliability, improving market competitiveness. Currently, the compliance list is not yet operational. The INL is expected to provide the necessary administrative guidelines.
