September 4, 2024
Fixed-term Employment
“EU Infringement Relief” Decree: “Removal of compensation cap for unlawful fixed-term contracts”
Council of Ministers
On September 4, 2024, the Council of Ministers approved a decree introducing potentially unlimited compensation for fixed-term contracts deemed null and converted by a judge into permanent contracts.
The amendment concerns Art. 28, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015 (part of the implementing decrees of the “Jobs Act”), which previously granted the worker, in cases where the term of the contract was declared null, compensation ranging from a minimum of 2.5 to a maximum of 12 months’ salary.
The EU authorities considered this provision insufficiently “deterrent” and thus threatened an infringement procedure for violating European regulations. The new provision will allow workers to claim compensation for damages caused by the nullity of the contract, even exceeding the 12-month salary cap.
August 29, 2024
Executives
Dismissal of bank manager who compromises customer trust deemed legitimate
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A bank branch manager, in an effort to meet set budget targets, activated a credit card for an elderly customer without her request and kept her PIN. Additionally, he conducted fictitious transactions on the accounts of several clients to meet the same goal. Once the bank became aware of these actions, it dismissed the manager.
The Supreme Court upheld the bank’s decision, stating that the employee’s conduct, although not resulting in actual financial harm, endangered customer trust and compromised the fiduciary relationship the bank could have in the employee’s future reliability.
September 5, 2024
Industrial Relations
Safety Representative may exercise the right to criticize like a union representative
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A worker appointed as the Safety Representative for Employees (RLS) contested a disciplinary suspension imposed by the employer. The company reacted to interviews the employee gave to local newspapers, in which he expressed criticism towards the employer regarding incidents involving employees and clients.
The Rome Tribunal had rejected the worker’s claim; however, both the Court of Appeal of Rome and the Supreme Court had a different view.
The reviewing judges held that the worker’s statements respected the limits of propriety and were related to the particular right of criticism granted to employees with union or representative roles. According to the Supreme Court, if formal propriety is maintained, the right to criticize can be exercised even with expressions that are subjectively unwelcome to the other party. Both the RLS and union representatives are seen as representing collective interests, and their solidarity with colleagues holds political and union significance.
August 22, 2024
Agency Contract
Principal’s termination of agency contract and severance compensation
Supreme Court, Labor Section
The Supreme Court revisited the issue of severance compensation in the context of agency contracts. The case concerned the termination of an agency contract by the principal. The parties disputed whether fixed guaranteed commissions should be included in the severance compensation calculation.
The Supreme Court reminded that the matter is not fully codified by the legislature (Art. 1751 Civil Code) and contains an inherently equitable component that must be factored into its determination. For example, the judge must consider the agent’s contribution to acquiring new clients for the principal or developing business with existing clients.
With this in mind, the Court ruled that fixed guaranteed commissions should be included in the severance compensation calculation, as the purpose of the law is to compensate the agent for the loss of benefits the contract would have provided if it had not been terminated by the principal.
July 16, 2024
Social Safety Nets
Survivor’s pension: Granted to disabled child only with proof of dependency
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An application was made to the National Social Security Institute (INPS) for a survivor’s pension as an adult disabled child who was dependent on the mother since the father’s death.
The judges reiterated that in such cases, the key requirement for granting the benefit is “dependency,” which is not necessarily identified with cohabitation or a situation of complete financial dependence of the disabled person. The requirement must be assessed rigorously, as it is essential to prove that the parent was continuously and predominantly providing for the disabled child’s maintenance.
In this specific case, the fact that the child had a taxable income of zero was irrelevant.
The Supreme Court upheld the INPS’s appeal, denying the survivor’s pension to the child due to lack of evidence of dependency.
September 5, 2024
Individual Dismissal
A worker in a state of mental incapacity is not subject to the regular deadlines for challenging a dismissal
Supreme Court, Labor Section
The case involved a worker who challenged her dismissal after the 60-day period provided by law. The employee claimed that during this time, she was in a state of mental incapacity and thus could not challenge the dismissal within the prescribed deadline.
The case reached the Supreme Court’s United Sections, which ruled in favor of the worker.
The Court held that the dismissal challenge rule needs to be reconsidered. Specifically, in such cases, the expiration period should start from the end of the worker’s state of incapacity.
The Court referred the matter to the Constitutional Court.
July 4, 2024
Dismissal for Just Cause
Dismissal for obstructive behavior deemed legitimate
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A worker was dismissed for refusing to perform his duties, significantly impairing the company’s operations. The employee took legal action to challenge the dismissal.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal, noting that insubordination goes beyond simply refusing to follow superiors’ instructions. It includes any behavior aimed at undermining the execution and proper implementation of those instructions within the corporate framework.
In this case, the worker’s conduct was deemed a deliberate and unreasonable obstruction, gravely and irreparably compromising the trust required in the employment relationship.
