May 7, 2024

Incentives

«Cohesion Decree»: Contribution Exemptions for Hiring Disadvantaged Women
«Cohesion Decree»

The conversion law known as the “Cohesion Decree” has been published in the Official Gazette. This law introduces a contribution exemption for private employers who hire “disadvantaged” women with permanent contracts between September 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025.

The exemption is equal to 100% of the employer’s contributions (excluding INAIL premiums) up to a monthly limit of 650 euros for a maximum of 24 months. Women considered “disadvantaged” are those who have been without regular paid employment for at least 24 months, or for at least 6 months if they reside in a region of the Special Economic Zone for the South or if they work in sectors with a gender employment disparity rate of over 25%.

Women are considered “without regular paid employment” if they have a fixed-term contract of less than 6 months or if they are self-employed with an annual income below the Irpef exemption threshold (5,500 euros in 2024).

Domestic workers and those hired under apprenticeship contracts are expressly excluded.

The incentive is subject to the “de minimis” rule and the net employment increase.

June 3, 2024

Worker Monitoring

Telepass is Not a Defensive Monitoring Tool
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A worker, who had duties as a traveling technician, was dismissed following certain deficiencies revealed by data obtained through the geolocation of his company-issued computer and the Telepass installed on the company car. The employee contested the dismissal in court.

The Supreme Court accepted the worker’s claim, clarifying that Telepass is not strictly a defensive monitoring tool and is not “neutral” regarding the information it can provide about an employee’s movements. Therefore, the use of such data by the employer is subject to the requirements of adequate prior information to the employee as stipulated by the Workers’ Statute.

July 8, 2024

Individual Dismissal

Validity of Dismissal Appeal Sent in Word Format via Certified Email
Supreme Court, Labor Section

The Supreme Court has confirmed the validity of a dismissal appeal letter sent via certified email in a modifiable Microsoft Word format. The case involved a letter sent by the worker’s lawyer without the signature of the appellant or the lawyer.

The Court of Appeal had deemed the appeal invalid. The Supreme Court overturned this decision. It reaffirmed its stance that the appeal can come from the lawyer alone and that to prevent forfeiture, any method that transmits to the recipient a written document expressing the worker’s intention to appeal the dismissal is sufficient.

Certified email can attest to not only the presence of the electronic document but also its content.

June 19, 2024

Contract

Joint Liability in Contracting and Transportation
Tribunal of Milan

The Tribunal of Milan provided significant clarifications on joint liability in contracts, highlighting three key points.

The ruling distinguishes between a transport service contract and a mere transport contract. A transport service contract exists when the parties plan a series of transports under a unified discipline and with adequate organization by the transporter to achieve an overall result that meets the client’s needs.

The Tribunal established that to interrupt the two-year limitation period, an out-of-court warning is sufficient. Referring to Article 2964 of the Civil Code, it underscores that the right can be exercised through an out-of-court warning or act if the communication clearly expresses the intent to invoke the client’s liability.

The ruling includes in the notion of “wage treatments” for the purpose of joint liability both the travel allowance and the money handling allowance. The travel allowance is not considered a lump-sum reimbursement for travel expenses but compensation for the constant performance of work outside the assigned location. The money handling allowance is included for similar reasons.

July 2, 2024

Contract

Social Clause: Worker Selection in Contract Change Must Follow Transparent Criteria
Supreme Court, Labor Section

In the case of a contract change with the application of the social clause (i.e., the obligation to hire workers previously assigned to the contract), the incoming company that does not hire all affected workers must justify the selection criteria.

The Supreme Court clarified that the purpose of social clauses is to set common rules for managing the succession between contractors, ensuring employment continuity. Even without a union agreement, the company must explain the selection criteria used and cannot arbitrarily choose the workers.

February 2, 2024

Apprenticeship

Legitimate to Charge Training Costs to Resigning Apprentice
Tribunal of Rome

A company took legal action against a former employee hired under a professional apprenticeship contract, who resigned during the training period, respecting the notice period. The employer claimed the former employee owed some sums (recovered through payroll deductions) as reimbursement for the costs incurred by the company for the professional training provided, as stipulated by the applicable national collective labor agreement (CCNL) and the individual employment contract.

The Tribunal found the company’s claim to be valid, ruling that according to the contractual provisions, unless the notice period is respected, in case of resignation without just cause, the worker is required to reimburse an amount equal to the remuneration paid for each day of training provided.

May 22, 2024

Social Safety Nets

Social APE for Workers Refusing Long-Distance Transfers
Tribunal of Milan

A company ordered the transfer of workers to a new production site about 290 km away from the previous workplace. One of the employees did not accept this decision and agreed to terminate the employment relationship by mutual consent, specifying in the conciliation report that the decision was motivated by the distance of the new site from her residence.

INPS recognized the employee’s right to NASPI for involuntarily losing her job but did not recognize her right to the social APE.

However, the Tribunal sided with the employee, ruling that the requirement for social APE is the involuntary loss of employment. Consequently, the termination due to refusal of a transfer over 50 km, which INPS considers valid for NASPI access, should equally be valid for social APE access.