March 10, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Insults and threats to a superior: dismissal possible even without “physical aggression”
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for serious insubordination after directing multiple insults and threats at his superiors. The Court of Appeal deemed the dismissal unlawful, noting that the applicable collective bargaining agreement (National Collective Labor Agreement for environmental services) provides for dismissal due to insubordination only if followed by “physical aggression,” which was absent in this case.
However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision and sent it back for reconsideration, stating that the disciplinary provisions of collective agreements are generally illustrative rather than exhaustive. This means that an employee’s conduct, even if not exactly listed in the agreement, can still justify dismissal for just cause if it exhibits a comparable degree of seriousness.
In this case, the insubordination involved not mere disobedience but also insults and threats. It will now be up to the lower court to assess whether this additional misconduct (“quid pluris”) is sufficient to equate the conduct’s seriousness with the types outlined in the collective agreement, thereby justifying dismissal.
February 26, 2025
Dismissal during probation
Different duties from those agreed upon: dismissal for failing probation is unlawful
Court of Messina
An employee challenged her dismissal during the probationary period, arguing she had been assigned different duties than those specified in the probation agreement. The judge found that she had been employed solely as a cashier, whereas her probation agreement specified deli work.
As a result, the probation test could not be considered valid, as the conditions necessary to assess the worker’s skills were not fulfilled.
The Court also reaffirmed the distinction between so-called “genetic” flaws — which affect the validity of the probation agreement itself, rendering it null — and “functional” flaws, where a valid agreement is improperly carried out by one of the parties.
This case fell into the second category, where the employee was not given a proper chance to perform the agreed tasks.
Therefore, the Court did not annul the probation agreement but recognized the employee’s right to either complete her probation under the correct conditions or, alternatively, receive compensation.
March 24, 2025
Resignation
Revocation of resignation: proof of employer receipt required, Ministry receipt alone is insufficient
Court of Appeal of Naples
An employee submitted his resignation for just cause through the Ministry of Labor’s online system. Later that same day, he decided to revoke it, again using the online procedure.
The company acknowledged receiving the resignation but denied receiving the revocation notice. The trial court ruled in favor of the company.
The employee appealed, arguing that the Ministry should have notified the employer of the revocation.
The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, stating that the worker is responsible not only for initiating the resignation or revocation procedure through the dedicated online platform but also for ensuring the revocation form is sent to both the local labor office and the employer.
Revocation is a “notified act” (i.e., it must be received to be effective).
The telematic procedure does not change the nature of the act; rather, it ensures that resignations are dated and that the worker’s intention to terminate the contract is free and informed.
April 8, 2025
Employee monitoring
Employee investigations: lawful if necessary and proportionate
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A female employee was caught working at a bar during her regular working hours, being unjustifiably absent from her employer.
Suspicious following reports, the company hired a private investigator who documented her repeated misconduct through targeted surveillance.
The lower court and the Court of Appeal ruled the dismissal unlawful, citing privacy violations and disproportionate investigative methods.
However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision, finding that the private investigation complied with the requirements for lawfulness.
According to the Court, private investigations are legitimate when aimed at verifying unlawful conduct by an employee, even if such behavior occurs outside direct work duties, provided the principle of proportionality is respected.
In this case, the employee’s unjustified absence during working hours, coupled with serious suspicion, justified the targeted, non-indiscriminate investigation.
January 16, 2025
Confidentiality and privacy
Protecting company assets does not justify constant GPS tracking of vehicles
Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante Privacy)
A worker at a transport company reported to the Data Protection Authority that the employer had installed a geolocation system on company vehicles used by employees without providing the legally required information notice (under GDPR) and without following the proper procedures for remote employee monitoring as required by labor law.
Following an inspection, the Authority confirmed that the geolocation system allowed continuous tracking of vehicle positions, thereby violating several GDPR provisions.
The Authority fined the company €50,000, stating that constant and continuous GPS tracking breaches the legal limits on personal data processing and on remote monitoring of employees.
April 4, 2025
Incentives
Start of bonuses for self-employment in strategic sectors
“Cohesion Decree”
The implementing decree for Article 21 of the Cohesion Decree (Decree-Law No. 60/2024) has been published, introducing two incentives to promote self-employment in strategic sectors for the development of new technologies and the digital and ecological transition.
The incentives include financial support for the creation of startups and a full exemption from social security contributions for permanent hires.
They are available to unemployed individuals under 35 years old who start a business in Italy between July 1, 2024, and December 31, 2025.
Eligible individuals can request an exemption for up to three years (no later than December 31, 2028) of up to €800 per month.
Strategic sectors include manufacturing; supply of electricity, gas, steam, air conditioning, and water; sewerage systems; waste management and remediation; construction; transport and storage; information and communication services; professional, scientific, and technical activities; rental; travel agencies; business support services; education; healthcare and social assistance; arts, sports, entertainment, and recreation; and other service activities.
March 15, 2025
Sickness and injury
Sickness allowance must be granted to retired employees in subordinate work
INPS (Italian Social Security Authority)
INPS clarified the rules regarding sickness allowance for retired employees who are still working.
In general, these workers are not exempt from sickness insurance contributions, which remain an obligation for the employer if required by the sector and job category.
However, receiving a sickness allowance is incompatible with some types of pensions.
Specifically, those receiving a disability pension cannot also receive a sickness allowance, as both benefits serve as wage replacements.
Finally, INPS reiterated that retirees enrolled in the “separate management” scheme are not eligible for sickness or hospitalization benefits and are not required to pay additional contributions for such benefits.
