October 10, 2024
Incentives
Christmas Bonus 2024 for Employees: Who is Eligible and How to Apply
Italian Revenue Agency
The Italian Revenue Agency has issued guidelines on the “Christmas Bonus,” a contribution of up to 100 euros provided by the “Omnibus” Decree (Decree Law No. 113/2024) for employees with incomes up to 28,000 euros. The amount will be credited in the December thirteenth-month salary.
To qualify for the bonus, the employee must meet three requirements:
- Total income not exceeding 28,000 euros in 2024;
- A spouse and at least one dependent child;
- “Tax capacity,” meaning a gross tax liability exceeding employee tax deductions.
The bonus does not vary based on the type of contract (fixed-term or permanent) or working hours (part-time).
A written request must be submitted to the employer, including the tax codes of the spouse and dependent children, or only the children in the case of a single parent. The employer can recover the amount as a tax credit.
Download the request form: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/hkevmbn7vkkitqxzbbj2u/2024-10-21-00007-Form-Bonus-Natale-2024.pdf?rlkey=78f5sfwt77ckltza7ezkwsjfz&dl=0
October 7, 2024
Law No. 104/1992
Unlawful dismissal of an employee using leave to assist a disabled person for other activities
Cass., Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for just cause following a disciplinary procedure in which the employer accused her of improperly using leave granted under Law No. 104/1992. Specifically, the company contested that the employee used the leave for personal purposes rather than to care for her disabled relative.
The Court of Appeal ordered the employee’s reinstatement and compensation, deeming that the activities performed during the leave (such as medical and logistical errands for the relative) were still connected to caregiving, even if not carried out at the disabled person’s home.
The Supreme Court upheld the employee’s position, clarifying that paid leave for assisting a disabled family member should not be interpreted narrowly. Caregiving is not limited to being physically present at the relative’s home but includes external activities closely related to the disabled person’s needs, such as purchasing medication or other tasks the disabled person cannot perform independently.
October 7, 2024
Dismissal due to Supervening Unfitness
Lawful dismissal of an employee under house arrest
Cass., Labor Section
An employee was dismissed due to the impossibility of performing work following house arrest, which prevented him from working for over 12 months.
The Supreme Court, affirming the lower court’s decision, reiterated that prolonged absence exceeding 12 months, even for reasons not attributable to the employee, justifies the termination of the employment relationship when the employer no longer has an interest in receiving further work performance. The applicable collective agreement allowed the employer to terminate after 12 months of absence, framing the situation as supervening impossibility under Articles 1463 and 1464 of the Civil Code.
September 13, 2024
Union Relations
Limits to Union Advocacy in the Workplace
Cass., Labor Section
An employee wore a union flyer in A3 format on his chest and back during working hours, trying to draw colleagues’ attention to union-related issues. However, this “sandwich man” approach disrupted regular company operations. The employer decided to impose a disciplinary measure of suspension from work and pay.
The employee appealed the disciplinary action in court.
Upon reaching the Court of Cassation, the judges ruled in favor of the company. The Court found that the employee’s conduct was an inappropriate way to carry out union activities. According to the Court, the “sandwich man” acts as a mobile bulletin board and forces colleagues to view union flyers, violating the limits set by the Workers’ Statute since union advocacy must not disrupt company organization and productivity.
The Court thus upheld the company’s stance, emphasizing that any form of leaflet distribution must respect the company’s regular operations.
October 10, 2024
Just Cause Dismissal
Justified dismissal for inappropriate behavior towards customers
Cass., Labor Section
An employee, working at a supermarket meat counter, addressed an elderly customer in an aggressive and vulgar manner. The employee did not apologize, resulting in an “indecorous and somewhat concerning spectacle,” as noted in the disciplinary notice. The employer ultimately decided to dismiss the employee for just cause.
Reversing the first-instance judgment, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer. The Court reminded that “just cause” occurs when the continuation of the employment relationship is impossible, even temporarily. The employee’s behavior was deemed a serious breach of his contractual obligations, particularly the duty to act courteously and maintain conduct in line with civic duties. The Court also considered the employee’s previous disciplinary infractions, highlighting the unsustainability of continuing the employment relationship.
October 14, 2024
Covid-19 / Coronavirus
Dismissal for exceeding the sick leave period was not affected by the Covid-19 “ban”
Cass., Labor Section
The case involved a part-time employee who was dismissed on November 25, 2020, for exceeding the sick leave period. The employee filed a lawsuit to claim the nullity of the dismissal, arguing that it violated the emergency legislation related to the Covid-19 pandemic (Art. 46, Decree Law No. 18/2020). This law had introduced a “ban” on dismissals due to the pandemic.
When the case reached the Court of Cassation, the judges rejected the employee’s appeal. The Court explained that the dismissal ban applied to dismissals for objective reasons, while the dismissal for exceeding the sick leave period is governed by a special rule (Art. 2110 of the Civil Code), distinct from the rule regulating economic dismissals (Art. 3, Law No. 604/1966).
Thus, the Court confirmed the employer’s position.
