January 28, 2025
Severance pay, notice, and other termination indemnities
Judicial verification of employment claims is required to access the INPS guarantee fund
Supreme Court, Labor Section

Several employees filed a lawsuit to assert their right to severance pay (TFR) from the INPS Guarantee Fund. The company, which had failed to pay the workers, had been removed from the business register and was no longer subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Given that any enforcement action against the company would be futile, the employees submitted only documentation proving their claims to the court. The lower courts deemed this documentation sufficient to trigger the Fund’s intervention, especially considering that enforcement actions by other workers against the same company had been unsuccessful.

However, the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, clarifying that a judicial verification of the outstanding claim is required to activate the Guarantee Fund, which can only be established through enforcement proceedings. This verification is essential to determine the extent of the INPS’s intervention, as the agency cannot proceed without a legal decision confirming the worker’s claim. In the case of dissolved companies, shareholders assume liability for outstanding debts, and if the claim is legally confirmed against them, it can serve as an enforceable title for the Fund’s intervention. The Court concluded that INPS is only obligated to pay if all legal conditions are met, with judicial verification of the claim being an essential prerequisite.

March 6, 2025
Incentives
New “Impatriates” tax regime: clarifications on requirements and conditions
Italian Revenue Agency

The Italian Revenue Agency has provided clarifications on the conditions to access the new tax regime for returning workers, introduced by Legislative Decree No. 209 of December 27, 2023.

The regime allows for a 50% reduction in taxation on employment and self-employment income for individuals who transfer their tax residence to Italy, provided they have not been tax residents in Italy for the previous three years and possess high qualifications or specializations. If the return occurs with the same employer or a company within the same group, the individual must have resided abroad for at least six or seven years.

In the case reviewed, a worker who returned to Italy in 2025 for a new job was granted the tax relief for income earned from the new employer but not for income from work performed for the previous foreign employer during the first three months of the year.

These clarifications confirm that eligibility for the regime depends on factors such as the duration and conditions of the stay abroad and the nature of the employment relationship upon return.

February 18, 2025
Individual dismissal
Disciplinary sanctions: the supreme court confirms employer discretion
Supreme Court

Several employees of a company were sanctioned differently for abusing a colleague’s credentials to obtain discounts on company purchases: some received a suspension, while others were dismissed. One of the dismissed employees challenged the decision, arguing that different sanctions for similar infractions violated the principle of proportionality.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reaffirming that the principle of proportionality applies only when infractions are identical. The employer retains discretion in determining disciplinary measures based on the specific circumstances of each case. A dismissal can be legitimate even if other employees involved in the same incident received lighter sanctions, unless an unjustified disparity in treatment is demonstrated.

This ruling, in line with previous decisions, confirms that the assessment of the severity of misconduct, the employee’s role, and the specific circumstances remain central to determining the legitimacy of disciplinary actions.

February 10, 2025
Job duties and demotion
Demotion damage also includes lack of employee training
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A worker filed a lawsuit claiming to have been demoted, seeking reinstatement in his previous role and compensation for professional damage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the claim, recognizing both the demotion and the resulting damage. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that in cases of professional dequalification, non-economic damage is compensable whenever there is a serious violation of workers’ rights protected by constitutional principles.

One of the key factors in determining compensation is the lack of professional training in the employee’s field, particularly in industries characterized by rapid technological advancements.

February 3, 2025
Null dismissal
Dismissal for just cause: evaluating serious misconduct during pregnancy
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A pregnant employee was dismissed for abusing leave granted under Law No. 104/1992, using it for personal purposes instead of assisting her disabled grandfather. She challenged the dismissal, arguing that it was unlawful. The Court of Appeal upheld the employer’s decision, ruling out discrimination related to her pregnancy. She then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases of dismissal during pregnancy, the assessment of serious misconduct must take into account the worker’s specific condition. It is not sufficient to establish a general just cause; a detailed evaluation of the worker’s personal circumstances is required. The judge must determine whether the misconduct, while serious, was influenced by the employee’s psychological and physical condition.

As a result, the Court ruled in favor of the employee.

February 18, 2025
Working hours, leave, and time off
Time spent dressing and undressing must be paid for nursing staff
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A nurse filed a lawsuit demanding additional pay for the time spent dressing and undressing for work. She claimed to spend 15–20 minutes daily on these tasks outside her working hours, without compensation.

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim, ruling that under collective labor agreements, compensation for dressing and undressing is required only if these activities are performed outside regular working hours and can be proven through timecard records. The lack of such proof led to the rejection of the claim.

October 29, 2024
Job duties and demotion
Burden of proof for demotion-related damage
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A worker, after successfully completing a qualification course for the role of Healthcare Assistant (OSS), was promoted but continued to be assigned tasks corresponding to a lower job level. The lower court ruled the employer’s actions unlawful and ordered the company to assign the worker appropriate duties but denied compensation for demotion-related damage.

The Court of Appeal also rejected the compensation claim, as the worker had failed to provide evidence of lost career opportunities or professional deterioration, which the court deemed necessary.

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, stating that compensation for non-economic damage due to demotion is not automatically granted upon employer misconduct. To receive compensation, the employee must provide concrete evidence of measurable financial damage affecting personal and professional life. Merely highlighting the potential harm of the employer’s conduct is insufficient; actual proof of the damage and its causal link to the employer’s actions is required.