9 September 2024
Law no. 104/1992
Shopping during leave under Law no. 104/1992 is legitimate
Court of Cassation, Labor Section

An employer dismissed an employee for just cause, accusing her of using the leave granted under Law no. 104/1992 for activities unrelated to the care of her disabled family member. Specifically, the employee had gone shopping at local markets. The worker filed a lawsuit.

The judges ruled in favor of the employee, emphasizing that the contested activity was marginal. In this case, the employee had made the purchases during her journey to the home of the family member she was assisting. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed unlawful, as the assistance purposes outlined by Law no. 104/1992 had been fulfilled.

In upholding the decision, the Court of Cassation held that Law no. 104/1992 does not require the worker to be present at the family member’s home for the entire working day. Moreover, the Court noted that in this case, the purchase of clothing was not considered an abuse, as these purchases could be intended to meet the needs of the assisted person.

26 September 2024
Remuneration and Benefits
New welfare services for commerce executives
Trade Union Organizations

The CFMT, through the Welfare Platform for Tertiary Executives, has expanded its welfare service offering for executives in the tertiary sector and their families. In addition to the health services provided by Fasdac and the pension services of the Fondo Negri, new services have been introduced, such as social care packages, psychological support, telemedicine, and telemonitoring. Among the most significant innovations, the platform now allows reimbursement for educational expenses (nurseries, schools, universities), care services (caregivers, nursing homes, home assistance), and public transport subscriptions.

Reimbursements, subject to approval, are paid directly by the company in the payroll of the month following the request, covering expenses incurred in Italy or abroad during the current or previous calendar year. The welfare credit, which ranges from 1,000 to 1,500 euros annually depending on the contract, can be used for a wide range of services, including supplementary health plans, prevention packages, educational programs for family members, training courses, and reimbursements for social and educational expenses. The credit is automatically loaded onto the platform for all executives in service from 1 January 2024 and is immediately available, subject to depletion. The new credit will be available from January 2025.

The company has access to the platform to manage the administrative aspects related to reimbursements and must update the payroll with the amounts due for the new services. These improvements to the welfare offering contribute to enhancing the well-being of executives and their families, making the offering unique and competitive in the market.

22 August 2024
Social Welfare Measures
Repayment of NASPI in case of conversion of fixed-term contracts: the Court of Cassation changes its stance
Court of Cassation, Labor Section

In cases where a fixed-term contract is converted into an open-ended contract following a judicial ruling, any unemployment benefits (NASPI) received by the employee before the ruling must be repaid. This conclusion is based on the principle that, with the conversion of the contract and the economic compensation to the worker, the unemployment status justifying NASPI no longer applies.

However, in the ruling under review, the Supreme Court reached a different conclusion. The case involved a worker who had obtained a declaration of the nullity of fixed-term contracts due to their illegitimate repetition. However, the Court observed that during the period in which the worker received unemployment benefits, no employment relationship was in place. This circumstance, according to the Court, is not overcome by the subsequent decision to restore the employment relationship, even with retroactive effect.
Thus, the worker was entitled to retain the NASPI received during the unemployment period.

13 September 2024
Dismissal for Just Cause
Timeliness of disciplinary action: employer delay is punishable
Court of Cassation, Labor Section

A bus driver failed to notify his colleagues of a delay incurred during his route. This omission caused organizational problems and service disruptions, leading the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings. However, while the conduct occurred on 9 December, the company did not issue the disciplinary notice to the employee until 19 February. The worker filed a lawsuit to challenge the sanction that followed.

The Court of Cassation ruled in favor of the worker. The principle of timeliness in disciplinary action is a reflection of good faith in the performance of the employment relationship; it does not allow the employer to postpone the disciplinary action in such a way as to make it difficult for the employee to defend themselves or to prolong uncertainty over the matter. In this case, the judges found that the simplicity of the alleged misconduct and its verification did not justify the delay in disciplinary action.

5 September 2024
Illness and Injury
Dismissal of a worker who goes shopping and to the bingo hall during illness is unlawful
Court of Cassation, Labor Section

A worker was dismissed for just cause for going to the bingo hall and shopping during a period of sick leave.

However, the Court of Cassation found the dismissal unlawful, noting that in cases of disciplinary dismissal for engaging in other activities during sick leave, it is the employer’s burden to prove that the activities undertaken during the days of absence were likely to hinder or delay the return to work.

A worker on sick leave is not required to refrain from any other activity, such as recreational or entertainment activities, as long as they are compatible with the illness and in accordance with the duty of good faith to take the appropriate precautions to ensure the illness subsides. In this case, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence of the incompatibility between the declared illness and the recreational activity, and it was not demonstrated that the worker had taken sick leave in bad faith, simulating the certified illness.

16 July 2024
Individual Dismissal
The Constitutional Court strikes at the “Jobs Act” again: further extension of reinstatement protection
Constitutional Court

With two now well-known rulings, the Constitutional Court has once again intervened in the regulation of dismissals under the “Jobs Act.”
The Court ruled that even under the “increasing protections” system, a wrongfully dismissed worker has the right to reinstatement (rather than merely economic compensation) when the material fact underlying the dismissal is non-existent.

According to the Court, it is unjustifiable to apply different sanctions between economic and disciplinary dismissals when the defect in the dismissal is the same (i.e., the fact is non-existent).
The Court also found it unconstitutional to deny reinstatement in cases where the disciplinary offense charged to the employee is punishable under the collective agreement with a conservative sanction (fine or suspension).

Overall, these rulings represent a further step towards reinstatement as the “normal” remedy for defective dismissals.

20 June 2024
Worker Monitoring
Telepass account statement is not defensive monitoring: dismissal of worker is legitimate
Court of Cassation, Labor Section

The case concerned a worker dismissed for falsely claiming to have performed an off-site activity that had, in fact, never been carried out. Specifically, the employer discovered, through Telepass records, that the vehicle assigned to the employee had remained parked at the maintenance area while a service report indicated the worker had removed an obstacle. The employer decided to dismiss the worker.

The worker took legal action, arguing that the employer should not have used Telepass data for disciplinary purposes, as this would turn the Telepass into a tool for remote monitoring of the employee’s work activity, requiring prior authorization, either from labor inspectors or trade unions, as per Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute, which had not been obtained in this case.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the company, clarifying that the employer retains the power to monitor the proper performance of work duties, either directly or through the hierarchical organization under their control, which is known to employees. The Telepass installed on the company vehicle is not a tool for remote monitoring of work performance but rather an organizational device, known to the employee.
The Court thus confirmed the validity of the dismissal.