May 11, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal for just cause: an inquiry into the degree of intent is always required
Supreme Court, Labor Section

An employee was dismissed for just cause after violating a smoking ban, which triggered the fire alarm and interrupted company operations. The Court of Appeal upheld the legitimacy of the dismissal, deeming the conduct a serious breach of contractual obligations.

However, the Court of Cassation accepted the employee’s appeal, overturning the decision due to the lower court’s failure to assess the subjective element of the conduct. The Supreme Court reiterated that even if conduct formally falls within the scope of just cause, it is necessary to assess the actual degree of intent or negligence and the context in which the conduct occurred.

The Court emphasized that mere violation of company rules, however objectively serious, cannot automatically justify dismissal unless accompanied by a concrete assessment of whether the act irreparably undermines the employment relationship.

This ruling aligns with settled case law: dismissal for just cause always requires a full evaluation of the facts, context, and the employee’s intent. A lack of such analysis makes the judgment flawed and subject to annulment.

May 28, 2025
Transfer of business
Transfer of business unit: invalid if functional autonomy is lacking
Court of Turin

A group of employees contested the transfer of their employment contracts following what was presented as a transfer of a business unit. They argued that there had been no genuine transfer of an autonomous entity, just a formal shift of certain activities, followed by immediate reassignment to different roles.

The Court upheld the claim, finding that the necessary condition for a business unit transfer was not met. The key issue was the functional autonomy of the transferred entity: the judge determined that there was no organized set of assets, resources, and personnel capable of independently continuing economic activity.

The decision reaffirmed a well-established principle: for a transfer of business unit to be valid, the transferred portion must already have real and stable functional autonomy before the transfer. A mere formal description or simple reassignment of staff is insufficient.

Consequently, the employee transfers were declared ineffective, with an order to reinstate them with the original employer. The ruling confirms that worker protection cannot be bypassed through organizational maneuvers masking inauthentic transfers.

June 16, 2025
Wages and benefits
Company practice can be changed to the detriment of employees
Supreme Court, Labor Section

This case involved employees who sued after their individual supplementary payments (superminimi) were reduced, having been absorbed by a national collective contract wage increase. The employer had never previously absorbed the superminimi during earlier contract renewals.

The Court of Cassation reiterated that company practices are a source of labor law with the same effect as company-level collective agreements. Thus, a favorable benefit stemming from practice may be modified or overridden by later collective rules—even to the employee’s detriment.

This applies to superminimi if they were granted as part of a company practice rather than as individual rewards for merit. In such cases, it is up to the employee to prove the existence of a specific reason preventing absorption.

The Court clarified that company practice does not bind the employer indefinitely, just as collective agreements can be renegotiated. In a changing context, practices may be terminated—provided the employer acts in good faith, gives a reason, and ensures workers are aware of the change.

May 5, 2025
Non-compete clause
If the employer can unilaterally modify the scope, the clause is void
Supreme Court, Labor Section

In ruling no. 11765/2025, the Supreme Court declared a non-compete clause void due to the vagueness of its terms and inadequacy of compensation.

The clause restricted the employee’s future employment within a geographic area that the employer could unilaterally expand, up to 250 km from company headquarters. The compensation offered was small and disproportionate.

The Court emphasized that a valid non-compete clause requires a written form, a clear definition of the subject matter, duration, territorial scope, and adequate compensation. If these conditions are vague, or if the compensation is symbolic or disproportionate, the entire clause is void—not just partially.

This decision reinforces case law that prohibits flexible clauses allowing employers to broaden post-contract restrictions unilaterally, undermining the validity of the agreement.

May 29, 2025
Dismissal for exceeding sick leave limits (comporto)
The comporto period can be extended—to protect disabled workers
Court of Naples

A healthcare worker with serious health conditions and officially recognized disability was dismissed after 364 days of illness-related absence, exceeding the permitted sick leave period (comporto). The worker claimed the dismissal was discriminatory, as it failed to consider his disability and was therefore unlawful.

The Court upheld the dismissal, noting the applicable collective contract set the comporto at 180 days, extendable to 300 upon request. However, in this case, the employer had already allowed a reasonable accommodation by waiting well beyond 180 days.

The judge ruled out unlawful discrimination, stating that there was no proven link between the absences and the disability, as the medical certificates lacked specific references to the worker’s condition. The Court clarified that employers must accommodate disabled employees only when they are concretely aware of the condition that requires protection.

The ruling confirms that reasonable accommodation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and anti-discrimination protections require a proven connection between absence and disability.

July 10, 2025
On-call (intermittent) work
Repeal of R.D. 2657/1923 does not affect the rules
National Labor Inspectorate (INL)

With note no. 1180/2025, the National Labor Inspectorate clarified that the repeal of Royal Decree no. 2657/1923 by Law no. 56/2025 does not affect the validity of on-call employment contracts.

This clarification was necessary due to doubts about the validity of Ministerial Decree of October 23, 2004, which refers to a table annexed to the repealed decree to define which activities permit on-call work. The INL, in agreement with the Ministry of Labor, stated that such a reference is merely material.

Therefore, the current rules remain unchanged: on-call work can still be used in cases defined by collective contracts or, in their absence, for the activities listed in the 2004 Ministerial Decree. The repeal of R.D. 2657/1923 does not invalidate that decree.

A helpful confirmation for employers who want to use this flexible form of contract lawfully.

May 23, 2025
Workers with disabilities
Disability pension credit applies even during union leave
Supreme Court, Labor Section

Article 80 of Law no. 388/2000 grants a two-month pension credit per year of service to certain disabled workers (e.g., deaf individuals or those with over 74% disability). The case concerned whether this benefit also applies during periods of union leave.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the worker. Contrary to INPS’s position—that union leave doesn’t qualify as “actual work” as required—the Court emphasized that the law aims to protect vulnerable workers by granting them extra pension credit.

Denying the credit during union leave would contradict the purpose of the law and discourage union engagement among disabled employees.

The Court concluded that union leave should be equated with active work, and that the contributory benefit applies during such periods as well.