June 18, 2025
Incentives
Youth Bonus: from July 1, 2025, the incentive will be subject to a net increase in employment
INPS
INPS has clarified a significant change regarding youth employment incentives. Following the interministerial decree published last May, the conditions for accessing the social security contribution exemption for employers hiring young people under a subordinate employment contract have been redefined.
The measure, already known as the “Youth Bonus,” provides for the elimination of social security contributions payable by the company (excluding INAIL premiums and contributions), up to a maximum of €500 per month per worker.
However, for hires or contract conversions made from July 1, 2025, the possibility of benefiting from the incentive is subject to an additional requirement: the employer must ensure a net increase in employment compared to the previous company workforce.
This means the benefit will be granted only if the new hire or conversion actually results in an increased total number of employees. This condition, required by the European Commission, aligns the youth incentive with other types of exemptions and aims to promote real employment growth.
Employers must declare, in the application for the incentive, that they will achieve and maintain this increase, in accordance with new operational instructions.
May 2, 2025
Dismissal during probation
Probationary period: withdrawal must be communicated promptly, otherwise the hire becomes final
Supreme Court, Labor Section
In the case examined by the Court of Cassation, a worker challenged a dismissal for failing the probation period, which was communicated via a letter delivered after the probation period had already expired. The employee had already completed all the probation days when he received the communication.
The judges confirmed that the company failed to prove the notice was delivered before the end of the probationary period. The Court reiterated that dismissal for failing probation, while ad nutum (i.e., without needing justification), is still a “notified act” — meaning it must be communicated to the worker within the set timeframe.
Otherwise, the employment relationship is considered finalized.
In this case, the company was ordered to compensate the wages due until the contract’s expiry, since it wasn’t proven that the employee found another job. The decision highlights the importance of timely and effective communication during the probationary period.
March 27, 2025
Collective dismissal
Collective dismissal: the five-dismissal threshold does not include consensual terminations
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A worker challenged his dismissal, claiming it constituted an undeclared collective dismissal. He argued that several colleagues had been “transferred” through individual contract assignments, which he alleged were simulated and violated collective dismissal rules.
The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, clarifying that for the minimum threshold of five dismissals within 120 days, only unilateral terminations (i.e., real dismissals) count, not consensual contract terminations.
The Court upheld EU case law: only unilateral acts of termination fall under the scope of the directive on collective redundancies.
Thus, consensual resolutions or contract transfers under Art. 1406 of the Civil Code — if freely accepted — cannot be counted as dismissals to reach the threshold.
The ruling also reaffirmed that Art. 2112 of the Civil Code, which enforces continuation of employment in case of business transfer, is an exception to the general rule, and outside such cases, employee consent to transfer is required.
This confirms the trend of avoiding interpretative distortions in defining collective dismissals, ensuring legal certainty and consistent application.
June 5, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Oral dismissal? The worker must prove the employer’s intent to terminate
Court of Catania
A healthcare worker challenged what he claimed was an oral dismissal, arguing it was null due to lack of written form. He said he was verbally expelled by the employer after an unfounded accusation, without any formal notice.
The Court dismissed the case, clarifying that the burden of proof lies with the worker, who must demonstrate not only the employment termination but also that it was due to the employer’s intent to dismiss.
Simply stopping work isn’t enough to prove dismissal — it could stem from resignation or other reasons.
In this case, there was no proof of dismissal: the employer’s testimony denied it, and the worker’s evidence was considered vague or inadmissible.
No concrete elements were provided to presume an actual dismissal.
The ruling aligns with established Supreme Court case law: oral dismissal, while lacking written form, is still a unilateral legal act that requires clear proof of the employer’s intention. Without such proof, the relationship is presumed to continue.
May 9, 2025
Dismissal for supervening unfitness
Dismissal due to physical unfitness: the Supreme Court clarifies the duty on reasonable accommodations
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A worker was dismissed after being deemed physically unfit to perform her duties. The company justified the dismissal by claiming it could not assign her to any equivalent or lower duties.
Both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal annulled the dismissal, holding that it wasn’t enough to claim no suitable jobs were available. The company had not shown any actual attempt to provide “reasonable accommodations” to keep the employee in the workforce.
The Supreme Court upheld this, reiterating that for a long-term condition qualifying as a disability under EU law, the employer must do more than just claim a lack of suitable roles.
It must prove it assessed and attempted alternative solutions, including possible organizational changes, unless they entail disproportionate burden.
The burden of proof lies with the employer regarding actual efforts made to accommodate the worker.
Traditional reassignment attempts alone are no longer sufficient in such cases.
June 5, 2025
Social security and contributions
Contribution limitation period: late salary payment does not extend the employer’s obligation
Supreme Court, Labor Section
The case arose from a former worker seeking compensation for pension losses due to unpaid contributions on a productivity bonus owed in 2005 but paid years later by court ruling.
The employer asked INPS to accept the late-paid contributions, but the agency refused due to the five-year limitation period.
The Court of Appeal had sided with the worker, reasoning that the limitation should start from the actual payment date.
However, the Supreme Court overturned this, reaffirming the accrual principle: contribution obligations arise based on salary due, not actually paid.
Thus, contributions were due when the bonus should have been paid under law or contract, and the limitation period starts from that date.
Late payment doesn’t delay the obligation or extend the limitation period.
This principle also applies to bonuses, where the relevant month is the one set by law or contract.
April 29, 2025
Confidentiality and privacy
Employees and digital monitoring: Privacy Authority sanctions excessive metadata retention
Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante Privacy)
The Privacy Authority concluded an investigation into a public administration that retained email metadata of employees for 90 days for security and technical support, without a proper union agreement.
It also found prolonged retention of internet browsing logs and technical support data, as well as contract deficiencies with service providers.
The region involved later corrected its practices: it signed agreements with unions, updated internal policies, and introduced data anonymization procedures after certain periods.
The Garante emphasized that employers must respect principles of data minimization and transparency, even in remote work scenarios, and may monitor workers only within the limits set by labor law protections.
