April 17, 2025
Executives
Dismissal for just cause is valid even with a stability clause
Court of Appeal of Salerno
A company entered into a fixed-term employment contract with an executive for the role of director, lasting five years, with a stability clause for the first four. However, in the fourth year, the executive was dismissed for just cause for having made decisions beyond his authority, without the required approval from higher bodies, thus breaching his contractual obligations. The executive contested the dismissal, claiming it was ineffective due to the stability clause. The Court of Appeal, however, upheld the legitimacy of the dismissal. The judges clarified that a stability clause does not prevent dismissal if the allegations are found to be substantiated and serious enough to compromise the relationship of trust. In this case, the breach of trust and contractual obligations made the stability clause irrelevant.
April 16, 2025
Fixed-term employment
Collective bargaining may limit the right of priority in hiring
Court of Milan
A female worker was employed by a company for about six months. At the end of the fixed-term contract, she invoked her right of first refusal for new hirings. When the company did not respond and reportedly hired other workers for similar roles, she filed a claim in court. The company argued that the applicable national collective agreement (CCNL Multiservizi) stipulated the right of first refusal could only be exercised after 12 months of fixed-term work, not six as provided by law.
The court accepted the employer’s argument, holding that the collective clause—explicitly referenced in the contract and not contested—was a valid derogation from the general legal framework. As the worker had provided less than 12 months of service, the right of first refusal was not deemed accrued.
April 30, 2025
Probationary dismissal
Dismissal during probation without a valid clause: only compensation, no reinstatement
Court of Treviso
A worker was hired on a permanent contract that explicitly excluded a probationary period. Despite this, the company dismissed her during an alleged probation period, relying on a clause from a prior letter of intent.
The court ruled the dismissal unlawful, emphasizing that the only valid agreement was the signed contract, which excluded probation. Moreover, the clause in the earlier letter would have been invalid anyway, as it did not clearly state the duties to be performed—a necessary requirement for a valid probation clause.
Without a valid probation clause, the employer’s termination was deemed an ordinary dismissal subject to a legitimacy check. However, since the requirements for reinstatement were not met, the company was ordered to pay six months’ salary as compensation under the indemnity-based protection outlined in Article 3, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015. The compensation was calculated based on the short duration of the employment and is not subject to social security contributions.
March 4, 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal for incapacity is unlawful if the prognosis is subject to revision
Court of Rome
An employee was declared totally unfit for work by a medical review board after a serious non-work-related accident and was subsequently dismissed. However, the incapacity was subject to reassessment within three years. During this time, the employee began physical recovery and was able to walk independently again in a short period.
The court ruled the dismissal unlawful, noting that the medical assessment could not be deemed final without a declaration of irreversibility. This was supported by a court-appointed medical expert, who confirmed partial recovery of work capacity before the end of the protected absence period (which the employer had not even cited as the reason for dismissal).
The judge stated that in such cases, the employer cannot proceed with dismissal unless the prognosis is irrevocable and definitive; they must either wait for the protected period to end or consider reassignment options after an assessment by the company doctor.
The company was ordered to reinstate the employee and compensate for the damages.
April 23, 2025
Mobbing
The employer must prevent stress from work overload
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee filed a lawsuit claiming a worsening of his physical and mental health due to excessive workload imposed by the company, resulting in severe personal and professional distress. Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged the workload, it rejected the claim, stating there was no evidence of specific harassing conduct that would constitute mobbing.
The Supreme Court overturned this ruling, emphasizing that the employer is required to take all necessary measures to safeguard the employee’s mental and physical well-being. Systematic persecution is not required: even a severe work overload, if not properly managed, can breach safety obligations.
Failing to organize work in a way that prevents stressful conditions can lead to employer liability and entitle the employee to compensation.
April 3, 2025
Equal opportunities – Discrimination
Discriminatory conduct: employer must pay allowance even during protected absences
Court of Milan
A trade union sued a private security company for failing to pay presence bonuses during periods of absence due to Law 104/1992 leave, parental leave, or when employees were newly hired at level 6I. The company followed the UGL-AISS collective agreement, which only granted the allowance for hours actually worked.
The court found this practice discriminatory, as it penalized protected conditions under anti-discrimination law and created unequal treatment based on disability, gender, and age.
The clause limiting the bonus was declared null and void. The court ordered the company to pay the allowance during the protected absences and adopt a plan to eliminate the discriminatory effects.
According to the judge, while the allowance aims to incentivize attendance, it cannot result in unfavorable economic treatment of individuals in protected situations. Justified absences for caregiving or disability must be treated the same as actual work hours when determining additional compensation.
April 11, 2025
Union relations
Non-strike collective actions: dismissal is retaliatory
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A union-affiliated worker was dismissed for disciplinary reasons after working according to national contract shifts rather than company shifts, in protest against unpaid supplementary contract bonuses. The Court of Appeal did not classify the action as a strike and ruled out discriminatory intent, applying reduced protection.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that although the action did not constitute a technical strike (as there was no work stoppage), it still represented a legitimate form of collective self-protection. The action, peacefully shared by multiple workers, was considered an expression of union conflict and thus deserving of full constitutional and international protection.
The dismissal based on participation in such activity was deemed retaliatory and anti-union, requiring full reinstatement of the employee.
