March 5, 2025
Confidentiality and privacy
Recording a colleague at work may violate privacy, but it is not always a disciplinary offense
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
A doctor working in a public hospital recorded a conversation with a colleague during working hours. The recording was later used in criminal proceedings against the head of the operating unit. Following a report, the Medical Council imposed a disciplinary sanction for violating the ethical duties of respect and confidentiality between colleagues.
The doctor appealed the decision, arguing that the recording was necessary to protect herself in court. However, the Central Commission for Healthcare Professionals upheld the sanction, considering the personal motivations irrelevant.
The Court of Cassation overturned the decision. It reaffirmed that the Medical Council’s disciplinary authority extends to conduct within public employment when related to professional ethics. However, it acknowledged that recording a conversation among those present may not be unlawful if intended for exercising the right to a legal defense, a principle supported by both privacy laws and the penal code. In such cases, the conduct may be justified and not warrant disciplinary action. The sanction was therefore annulled and remanded for reconsideration.
April 6, 2025
Wages and benefits
Collective “superminimum” pay can be reduced: it is not untouchable compensation
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
Some employees, who became part of a new company following a business transfer, were granted a non-absorbable “superminimum” to offset differences between the former and current national collective agreements. This allowance was part of a collective agreement that was later revoked in 2020, resulting in the withdrawal of the superminimum. The employees sued, invoking the principle that salaries cannot be reduced.
However, the Court sided with the employer, stating that improved compensation granted due to a business transfer can be reduced if it stems from collective agreements. The Supreme Court clarified that the new employer has the right to apply its own (even less favorable) collective contract and that the principle of salary irreducibility does not apply to collectively agreed economic treatments, which can be modified by new union agreements. Specifically, the superminimum was considered an additional allowance, not part of the core wage tied to job duties.
The ruling reaffirms that only individually negotiated economic terms are untouchable; those from collective agreements can evolve along with the legal sources that created them.
April 28, 2025
Working hours, leave, and permits
Night on-call duty counts as working time and must be properly paid
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
A social cooperative educator contested the lack of overtime pay for night on-call hours, claiming he regularly exceeded the 38 weekly hours set by contract.
The Court of Cassation ruled that on-call duty, where the worker must sleep at the workplace, must be considered working time. Such presence significantly restricts personal time management, even if no actual work is performed. However, the Court noted that EU directives do not dictate compensation levels, leaving that to national contracts, as long as the principles of proportionality and adequacy under Article 36 of the Italian Constitution are respected.
The decision affirms workers’ right to fair pay even for on-call periods and urges lower courts to assess whether contractual allowances are adequate.
June 3, 2025
Mobbing (workplace harassment)
Awareness of job difficulty excludes mobbing and straining claims
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker sued his employer, claiming mobbing and straining due to excessive pressure and disproportionate demands that harmed his mental and physical health.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected the claim, pointing out that the worker had been aware of the job’s demands since hiring. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that harassment cannot be claimed when the worker knowingly accepted a challenging role.
According to the Court, being aware of the job’s complexity and lacking specific harassing behavior by the employer rules out mobbing or straining. A systematic, persecutory intent is required for such claims, which was not present in this case.
April 18, 2025
Self-employment and subordinate work
Riders and intermittent work: the Ministry outlines classification criteria
Ministry of Labour
Circular No. 9/2025 from the Ministry of Labour provides initial guidance on how to classify the employment relationships of platform-based delivery riders. The key point is a reference to intermittent (on-call) work as a possible interpretative framework.
Like on-call jobs, platform-based work can be fragmented and flexible. Therefore, the circular advises not to rely solely on the contract’s formal label, but to consider the actual working conditions.
It also refers to EU Directive 2024/2831, which requires member states to introduce a rebuttable presumption of employee status to combat false self-employment. Pending formal adoption, the Ministry encourages a substantive approach that focuses on the reality of the work rather than formal titles.
The goal is to prevent disguised dependency and ensure that workers receive the minimum protections associated with subordinate employment.
April 2, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Too many coffee breaks: dismissal is valid even without a posted disciplinary code
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
A sanitation worker was dismissed after an investigation revealed he frequently took long coffee breaks during work hours, confirmed by GPS tracking on his assigned vehicles.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The worker argued that the disciplinary code had not been posted as required, but the Court noted that posting is not necessary when the behavior violates laws or fundamental worker duties, or general social norms that are widely understood.
Especially when the conduct may constitute a criminal offense or violates ethical standards universally recognized, the worker cannot claim ignorance. In such cases, the employer is not required to post a disciplinary code to justify sanctions.
March 24, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Criminal conviction outside of work: no just cause if irrelevant to the job
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
A postal services employee was dismissed for just cause after being convicted—years earlier—for drug trafficking, unrelated to her job. The employer had known about the case for some time but only terminated her after the final conviction.
Both the Trial and Appeal Courts annulled the dismissal and ordered reinstatement, finding that the employer failed to show how the conviction damaged the trust needed for her clerical role, which had no customer contact.
The Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement, emphasizing that while employees must maintain loyalty even outside work, the disciplinary relevance of off-duty conduct depends on its actual impact on the employee’s role and the company’s operations. In this case, the conviction, though serious, did not irreparably harm the trust relationship and did not justify dismissal without notice.
