May 7, 2024
Incentives
New benefits from September 1, 2024: “Youth Bonus”
“Cohesion Decree”
New incentives are now in place to increase stable youth employment. The incentive applies to hires made between September 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025, of individuals who, at the time of hiring, are under the age of 35 and have never been employed on a permanent basis.
The exemption also applies in cases of prior apprenticeships that were not confirmed. The incentive consists of a 100% exemption from social security contributions payable by private employers, excluding INAIL premiums and contributions, with a monthly limit of €500 per worker, within the limits of authorized expenditure and the criteria established by the “National Program for Youth, Women, and Work 2021-2027.” The exemption is increased to €650 per month for hires at locations or production units based in the regions of Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, Puglia, Sardinia, and Sicily. The benefit is granted for a maximum period of 24 months. Private employers (including public economic entities and private entities not classified as entrepreneurs, such as agricultural employers) are eligible for the benefit, excluding public administrations and domestic employers.
May 7, 2024
Incentives
“Cohesion Decree”: contribution relief for hires in the single SEZ territories
“Cohesion Decree”
Private employers hiring non-executive staff with a permanent employment contract at a location in one of the SEZ regions (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, Puglia, Sicily, Sardinia) are eligible for contribution relief.
The relief consists of a 100% exemption from the total social security contributions payable by employers (excluding INAIL premiums and contributions), with a monthly limit of €650 per worker.
The benefit applies to hires of individuals who are at least 35 years old at the time of hiring and have been unemployed for at least 24 months. The exemption also applies to individuals who, at the time of the incentivized hire, were previously employed on a permanent basis by another employer who had partially benefited from the exemption
The exemption is granted for a maximum of 24 months.
The benefit is reserved for employers with up to 10 employees and only for hires made between September 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025.
Only employers who have not made justified individual or collective dismissals in the six months prior to the hire at the same production unit are eligible for the benefit.
May 7, 2024
Incentives
Incentives for disadvantaged women
“Cohesion Decree”
The so-called “Cohesion Decree” introduced incentives for permanent hires made between September 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025, targeting disadvantaged women.
Disadvantaged women include: a) women of any age who have been without regularly paid employment for at least six months and reside in the regions of the single Special Economic Zone for the South (Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, Puglia, Sicily, Sardinia); b) women of any age who have been without regularly paid employment for at least six months and work in professions and sectors characterized by a gender employment disparity rate exceeding the average male-female disparity by at least 25%; c) women of any age who have been without regularly paid employment for at least 24 months, regardless of their place of residence.
The incentive consists of a 100% exemption from social security contributions payable by private employers, excluding INAIL premiums and contributions, with a monthly limit of €650 per worker, within the limits of authorized expenditure and the criteria established by the “National Program for Youth, Women, and Work 2021-2027.”
The benefit is granted for a maximum period of 24 months.
May 24, 2024
Dismissal for Just Cause
Unlawful dismissal for just cause imposed after four months
Cass., Labor Section
An employee challenged his dismissal for just cause, claiming it was untimely, as it had been communicated approximately four months after the alleged incident. Specifically, on December 2, the employee had admitted the facts in question to the company’s inspectors, which occurred between July and September. The company stated that the investigation was completed on March 15 of the following year, the letter of complaint was issued on March 28, and notified on April 10, claiming the decision could not have been made earlier since the inspectors lacked disciplinary authority, which rested with the relevant department heads.
The Court of Cassation ruled in favor of the employee, noting that while the timeliness of the complaint is relative, as it must consider the time needed to ascertain the facts or the complexity of the organizational structure, in this case, the over four months between the employee’s confession and the disciplinary complaint was disproportionate and contrary to good faith.
May 23, 2024
Tasks and Demotion
The determination in cases of requests for higher classification: the three phases identified by jurisprudence
Cass., Labor Section
A female employee filed a lawsuit against her employer, requesting a higher classification, specifically the category of “quadro” (middle manager), along with the corresponding pay differences.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s decision to reject the claims.
The Supreme Court also dismissed the employee’s request, noting that the lower courts had correctly applied the Court’s guidance for determining the proper classification of a subordinate employee.
Specifically, the Court of Cassation stated that the judge must conduct the examination in three successive phases:
- verification of the actual work performed
- identification of the qualifications provided by the collective agreement
- comparison between the results of the first and second inquiries.
March 12, 2024
Managers
Dismissal of a manager for objective reasons
Cass., Labor Section
A manager at an insurance company was dismissed due to the elimination of his position during a merger by incorporation, as part of a company reorganization aimed at reducing costs, improving efficiency, and avoiding duplication of roles.
The dismissal was deemed justified by the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal, clarifying that the individual dismissal of a manager can be based on objective reasons related to company reorganization needs, which do not necessarily have to coincide with the impossibility of continuing the employment relationship or a crisis situation making continuation particularly burdensome. The principle of fairness and good faith, which serves as the standard for measuring the legitimacy of dismissal, must be balanced with the freedom of economic initiative. Termination is permissible in cases where it is carried out in the context of a business restructuring based on non-arbitrary, non-pretextual, and non-persecutory business decisions.
June 7, 2024
Mobbing
Workplace stress: the Court of Cassation expands the concept of the “right to health” protected by law
Cass., Labor Section
The Court of Cassation reaffirmed that a work environment causing stress is inherently unjust, even in the absence of mobbing behaviors, and, as an unjust act, it gives the employee the right to compensation for the damage suffered.
The case involved repeated hostile behavior by a manager, leading to the employee’s moral humiliation and marginalization.
The Court emphasized that mobbing is not limited to illegal acts but also applies to behaviors that, while individually lawful, are objectively characterized by systematic and “persecutory” intent toward the worker.
The ruling, in favor of the employee, highlighted that the concept of health (protected by law) can no longer be defined as the “mere absence of disease or infirmity” but must be understood as a “state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.”
