January 25, 2025
Welfare and contributions
Contribution benefits: application of the relevant sector’s CCNL is mandatory
Supreme Court, Labor Section

The Supreme Court has ruled that, to access contribution benefits, companies must apply the national collective labor contract (CCNL) corresponding to the sector of their actual business activity.

In the case under review, an agricultural company had applied the provincial contract for agricultural workers of the province of Taranto to its employees, even though they worked in the province of Bari. This choice resulted in lower wages compared to those established by the correct territorial contract, leading to a reduction in the taxable contribution base. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, which denied the company the right to contribution relief.

This ruling reinforces that contribution relief is conditional on applying the relevant sector’s collective labor contract or a more favorable one for workers and cannot be based on the employer’s unilateral decisions.

March 1, 2025
Remote work – “Smart working”
Smart working: the employer cannot revoke it if the right of withdrawal was expressly excluded
Ancona Court

A worker was hired following a conciliation agreement that detailed the conditions of remote work, including its indefinite use and, most importantly, the express exclusion of the employer’s right to revoke it unilaterally.

Despite this, the company announced the termination of remote work, ordering the employee to return to the office. The worker’s refusal was then used as grounds for dismissal.

The court ruled the employer’s decision unlawful, emphasizing the clarity and unconditional nature of the individual agreement, which was an integral part of the employment contract. The absence of a formal smart working agreement did not affect its validity, as the terms were already binding under the signed conciliation agreement.

The ruling clarifies that an employer’s changed needs, making remote work less convenient, do not justify dismissal unless they objectively impact job performance.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the worker or, alternatively, pay compensation equivalent to six months’ salary.

March 17, 2025
Equal opportunities – discrimination
Gender equality: new guidelines for business training aimed at certification
Ministry of Labor

With the directive of February 29, 2025, the Ministry of Labor issued guidelines for planning and designing training activities aimed at obtaining gender equality certification.

Interested companies can access training programs through regional authorities, ensuring compliance with the standards set by UNI/PdR 125:2022, which outlines the requirements for certification.

The guidelines serve as a non-binding but orientational tool for regional administrations, ensuring quality, coherence, and feasibility of training initiatives. Topics range from introductory training on the certification system to thematic training on the six strategic areas defined by UNI standards (governance, pay equity, HR management, parenting, inclusion, and corporate culture), as well as specialized training on performance indicators.

The objective is twofold: to raise awareness among businesses about inclusive policies and to facilitate the fulfillment of certification requirements, which can provide a competitive advantage in addition to being an ethical commitment. Training actions are distinct from awareness-raising or consulting activities and must be strictly educational in nature.

February 18, 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal is lawful even if the facts relate to a previous employment relationship
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A postal worker was dismissed for failure to deliver, theft, concealment, and partial tampering with correspondence.

The particularity of the case is that the offenses occurred during a previous employment relationship between the same parties, while the dismissal was issued during the new contract, which had been established through a novative conciliation.

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, considering that the worker’s actions constituted a complete failure to fulfill job duties. Such behavior violated all core responsibilities of a postal worker, a role that requires the highest level of trust due to the independent nature of the work, performed outside the office without direct employer supervision.

December 11, 2024
Individual dismissal
Dismissal is lawful even when sent to the worker’s lawyer
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A worker was dismissed for using their mobile phone in a workplace handling flammable petroleum products. However, the employee claimed the dismissal was unlawful because the letter was sent to their lawyer rather than directly to them.

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the company. The judges emphasized that the legal requirement for written dismissal does not mandate specific formats or methods, as long as the employer’s intent to terminate the contract is clear and unequivocal. The essential factor is that the dismissal is effectively communicated to the worker.

In this case, the dismissal letter sent to the lawyer was deemed valid since the worker was made aware of it and promptly challenged the termination.

Regarding the legitimacy of the dismissal, the court held that violating internal safety regulations designed to protect workers and plant security justified termination. The worker’s use of a mobile phone posed a severe risk to the company, and their actions were deemed incompatible with safety obligations.

January 27, 2025
Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing cannot be used for personal disputes
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A worker was suspended without pay for abusing the whistleblowing procedure by filing complaints against a manager. The employee challenged the sanction in court, arguing they should be protected for reporting misconduct.

However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the company, determining that the worker’s reports were aimed at personal grievances rather than exposing unlawful conduct.

The Supreme Court confirmed the previous rulings, stating that whistleblower protections apply only to reports of workplace misconduct. Reports driven by personal disputes, such as conflicts with colleagues, employment contract management issues, or complaints about superiors, do not qualify for whistleblower protection.

February 12, 2025
Occupational health and safety
Train driver’s refusal to work as a “Lone Operator” is lawful: collective agreements apply to all workers, even those not unionized
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A group of railway drivers was suspended without pay for refusing to work under the “Lone Operator” mode, which meant working without a second driver onboard.

The employees challenged the disciplinary sanctions in court, arguing that this working method was introduced through a union agreement signed by different labor organizations from those they were affiliated with. They also claimed that working alone compromised their safety and that of passengers.

The Court of Appeal annulled the sanctions and ordered the company to refund the withheld wages.

The Supreme Court, while clarifying that in the absence of explicit dissent, company-wide collective agreements apply to all workers regardless of union membership, upheld the lower court’s decision. The judges emphasized that the workers’ refusal was legitimate due to the violation of occupational safety principles.

In particular, the absence of a second driver in case of emergencies (such as illness or injury) would have delayed assistance, endangering safety. The court reaffirmed that if an employer fails to comply with safety regulations, employees have the right to refuse work without facing penalties and are still entitled to their wages.