May 6, 2025
Remuneration and Benefits
The “super‑minimum” cannot be touched when changing levels
Supreme Court (Cassation)
A female worker, upon promotion to a higher contractual level under the collective agreement, had her previously granted “super‑minimum” allowance reduced, with the employer claiming it was “absorbed” by the new, higher contractual minimum wage.
After conflicting rulings in lower courts, the Court of Cassation clarified when individual super‑minimum can actually be absorbed. The Supreme Court held that absorption is permissible only when the collective agreement provides an increase in the minimum wage—not simply due to a level progression that raises the table wage but reflects different duties.
This decision confirms that an individually negotiated super‑minimum—a salary component granted for specific reasons—cannot be automatically absorbed following a promotion. This principle protects individual agreements that exceed the contractual minimum, ensuring economic continuity even when duties are reorganized.
April 8, 2025
Individual Dismissal
Retirement age and dismissal: no reinstatement, only compensation
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker, unlawfully dismissed, had initially obtained a court order for reinstatement plus back pay until return. However, during the legal process the worker turned 67 and applied for the state pension.
The Court of Cassation clarified that in such cases, the judge cannot order the company to reinstate the worker, but only award compensation for the period between dismissal and reaching retirement age. Once pension is accessed, it obstructs continuation of employment, as the worker has made a choice incompatible with reinstatement.
The ruling distinguishes between the eligibility for retirement and the actual receipt of pension, stating that it is the latter which makes reinstatement impossible.
April 28, 2025
Just‑cause dismissal
The new disciplinary code is not retroactive: legal certainty must prevail
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker was dismissed for insulting and threatening a team leader. He appealed to the Cassation invoking a new collective bargaining clause—adopted after the incidents—which prescribed a lesser, non‑dismissal sanction for the same behavior and declared itself retroactive.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, ruling that new disciplinary rules cannot apply retroactively. A generic retroactive clause in the collective contract isn’t enough: disciplinary provisions must comply with legal certainty, meaning the rules must have been known at the time of the conduct.
According to Cassation, reinstatement protection applies only if the employer knowingly abuses its disciplinary power or if dismissal is manifestly illegitimate under the rules in force at the time of the misconduct.
April 3, 2025
Null dismissal
Dismissal in retaliation for testifying in favor of a colleague is null
Supreme Court, Labour Section
The case involved a dismissal for just cause after the worker testified—on behalf of another colleague—in a lawsuit. The worker was accused of giving false testimony counter to the company’s defense, although neither the court nor the company pursued perjury charges.
The trial court and court of appeal both deemed the dismissal unlawful, concluding it was retaliatory, not genuinely due to just cause. Cassation sided with the worker, confirming it was correctly classified as retaliatory dismissal based on the facts.
Finally, in calculating compensation for a null dismissal, the Court reiterated that one must refer to the total actual remuneration—averaging all received payments—regardless of the job title subsequently held.
March 27, 2025
Just‑cause dismissal
Just cause for dismissal exists independently of criminal relevance of the conduct
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker was dismissed for personally taking €1,300 from the company’s cash register. He contested the dismissal, arguing that the elements of the criminal offense of misappropriation didn’t apply, so disciplinary fault couldn’t be found.
The lower courts upheld the dismissal, noting that the company’s disciplinary code explicitly forbade appropriating company assets, even of small value. Cassation affirmed that just cause depends on whether the conduct undermines the trust relationship between employer and employee. Criminal relevance is irrelevant: just cause is based on how seriously trust is breached, not on whether the act is punishable. Even conduct only criminally potentially punishable can justify immediate dismissal if it damages essential trust.
May 22, 2025
Economic dismissal
Economic (justified objective reason) dismissal: Cassation clarifies when increased compensation applies
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A female worker was dismissed for justified objective reasons and awarded standard compensation due to unfair dismissal. Lower courts granted an increased indemnity, applying rules that allow stronger economic protection under certain conditions.
The Court of Cassation clarified that this increased indemnity applies only to employers with more than 15 but no more than 60 employees. The relevant law allows raising maximum compensation from six to 10 or 14 months’ pay when there is both long service (10 or 20 years) and the employer has 15–60 employees across multiple sites.
Employers with over 60 staff remain subject to ordinary compensation rules for unfair dismissal. This decision reaffirms the importance of company size in determining economic sanctions for economic dismissals.
April 30, 2025
Dismissal for exceeding medical leave limit
Dismissal for exceeding permissible medical absence valid even during Covid‑19 lockdown
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker was dismissed for exceeding the “comporto” (maximum allowable illness absence) due to a new medical incapacity. The case fell during the Covid‑19 dismissal ban, and the worker challenged it as illegitimate.
The Court of Cassation upheld the dismissal, noting that the pandemic-era ban did not apply to dismissals due to exceeding comporto or new incapacities. These cases were not covered by the general suspension because they involve individual circumstances—not economic or organizational reasons.
This decision offers important clarity to employers, pinpointing the boundary between prohibited dismissals and those allowed even during emergency lockdowns.
