“The Rights and Duties in the Employment Relationship” – Newsletter No. 306 of July 2, 2024

Contents

June 25, 2024

Incentives

New Measures for Hiring Staff: Updates from the June 25, 2024 Decree

MEF

The Ministry of Economy and Finance has issued a decree outlining the implementation methods for tax incentives for new permanent hires.

Businesses, professionals, and artisans can benefit from an increased deduction of the cost of newly hired personnel with permanent contracts. This incentive applies for 2024.

The decree introduces an additional tax deduction for companies that hire employees who fall into categories deserving greater protection, including disadvantaged workers, disabled individuals, young people seeking their first job, and other protected categories.

April 15, 2024

Personnel Administration

Communications via PEC: Only with Digitally Signed Attachments

Cass., Sez. Lav.

The Court of Cassation has clarified a crucial aspect of the use of Certified Electronic Mail (PEC) in legal contexts: PEC guarantees the sending and receiving of the message but does not certify the validity of the content of attachments. This clarification has important implications for companies and professionals using PEC for document transmission.

The case involved a dispute between two companies, G and the bankruptcy B. G had sent a PEC containing a document related to a business lease contract and argued that the PEC also certified the content of the attached document. However, the Tribunal of Cagliari rejected G’s claim for credit inclusion, stating that the PEC did not guarantee the certain date of the attached document.

The Court of Cassation confirmed that the PEC certifies only the sending and receiving of the message, not the content of the attachments. Therefore, even if the PEC message is certified, the attached document cannot be automatically considered valid and authentic. To certify the validity and integrity of an attachment’s content, it must be digitally signed.

May 21, 2024

Personnel Administration

Ordinary Email (PEO) and not only PEC can Satisfy the Requirement of Written Form

Cass., Sez. Lav.

The Court of Cassation has established that a simple email can satisfy the requirement of written form in contracts. This clarification fits within the context of the Digital Administration Code, providing an important specification for legal and contractual practices.

The case involved an insurance contract between a hauler and an insurance company. The hauler had suffered a theft and requested compensation from the company. The company refused payment, claiming that the contract excluded medicines from coverage. The hauler then filed a lawsuit, arguing that the email exchange between the broker and the company, which included medicines in the coverage, constituted a contract modification.

The Court held that a simple email can meet the requirement of written form, provided the origin or content of the message is not contested. The ruling states that, for evidentiary purposes, a non-certified email has the value of a mechanical reproduction (like a photocopy) and can be used as evidence if not contested.

This ruling clarifies that email exchanges can have significant legal value. Companies should pay attention to email exchanges and consider adopting measures to ensure the integrity and authenticity of electronic communications, such as using digital signatures.

June 10, 2024

Dismissal for Just Cause

On the Promptness of Disciplinary Dismissal Notification

Cass., Sez. Lav.

The Court of Cassation reaffirmed the principle of promptness in disciplinary dismissal notifications. This principle should be understood in a relative sense, taking into account reasons that may justify a delay in the notification, such as the time required to ascertain the facts and the complexity of the company’s organizational structure.

The case involved a worker dismissed for disciplinary reasons, who contested the timeliness of the dismissal notification. The Court of Cassation emphasized that the evaluation of the promptness of the notification is up to the trial judge and is not subject to appeal if supported by adequate reasoning and free from logical flaws. The Court reiterated that promptness should be assessed relatively, considering the technical time required to ascertain the facts and the company’s organizational structure. This means that a certain delay can be justified if motivated by the need for accurate and thorough verifications. Companies must still be aware that, although the principle of promptness is relative, they must act swiftly in contesting disciplinary behavior. Excessive and unjustified delay in the notification could render the dismissal illegitimate.

June 26, 2024

Dismissal for Just Cause

Anonymous Letters Against Management: No Dismissal if the Employer Cannot Prove Attribution to the Worker

Cass., Sez. Lav.

A worker was dismissed because the employer believed he had anonymously written and distributed two letters containing offensive and defamatory content toward the company’s head of personnel.

The Supreme Court sided with the worker, noting the lack of sufficient evidence to establish just cause for the dismissal, which the burden of proof rests on the employer. Therefore, according to the judges, the worker’s dismissal is illegitimate if it cannot be proven that the threatening letters directed against the company were attributable to him.

June 20, 2024

Dismissal for Economic Reasons

Repêchage: Necessary but No Obligation to Retrain the Employee

Cass., Sez. Lav.

Several workers were dismissed for objective justified reasons and challenged the dismissal, deeming it retaliatory and, in any case, illegitimate for lack of repêchage (i.e., the employer’s failure to verify the availability of other positions to avoid dismissal).

The Supreme Court rejected the workers’ claim, clarifying that dismissal for objective justified reason must be preceded by the employer’s attempt at repêchage. The employer is required to demonstrate that the dismissed worker did not have the necessary professional skills to occupy a different available position. The judges clarified that the employer is not also obliged to train the employee to make him suitable for the available position and safeguard his job. In other words, the obligation of repêchage must be assessed considering the worker’s skills and training at the time of dismissal.

June 26, 2024

Inspections and Sanctions

Heavy Fine for Undeclared Work: Regularization Based on Actual Work Performed

INL

The National Labor Inspectorate has provided some clarifications regarding irregular work, specifically concerning the calculation of the fine.

In particular, the Inspectorate clarified that the period of undeclared employment before the inspection must be regularized based on the actual work performed. The principle of actual performance applies, according to which remuneration and contributions must be based on the work—both quantitatively and qualitatively—actually carried out until the time of the inspection.

Date
Speak to our experts