28 July 2025
Editorial
The Newsletter is taking a break

Dear Readers,

With this issue, the Newsletter is taking a break for the summer.
We hope that the content shared over the past year has been both enjoyable and useful to you.

On this occasion, we would also like to inform you that between 11 August and 24 August 2024, the Labour team of our Firm will be operating on a reduced schedule and with limited activities. As always, we will remain available via email for urgent matters and will ensure that all time-sensitive tasks are managed.
The Newsletter will resume in September.

Enjoy your reading, and from all of us, best wishes for the upcoming holidays!

Vincenzo Fabrizio Giglio

10 July 2025
Business travel and transfer
Business trips abroad: expense reimbursements no longer require traceable payments
Italian Revenue Agency

With ruling no. 188/E of 10 July 2025, the Italian Revenue Agency has definitively clarified the tax regime for expense reimbursements to employees sent on assignments or business trips outside of Italy.
The issue arose from a recent legislative change that required traceable payments—thus prohibiting cash—for reimbursements of meals, accommodation, travel, and transportation during business travel.

Following the introduction of Decree Law no. 84/2025, traceability remains mandatory only for expenses incurred within Italy. In contrast, for trips abroad, it is no longer necessary for payments to be made using traceable methods: even expenses paid in cash do not contribute to taxable income, provided that the other legal conditions are met.
This clarification is a significant relief for employers and employees operating in countries where electronic payments or traceability tools are not widely used.

18 July 2025
Working hours, holidays, and leave
Unused holidays: employers must promptly inform employees of remaining days
Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section

An employee nearing retirement was granted the right by the Italian Supreme Court to retain unused accrued vacation days, as the employer failed to prove that he had been genuinely given the opportunity to use them.
Ruling no. 20035/2025 states that the employer must not only allow the employee to take the remaining holidays but must also formally and promptly invite them to do so, specifying the exact number of days still available.

The Court reaffirmed that automatic loss of holiday entitlement and corresponding compensation upon termination of employment can only occur if the employer demonstrates that the employee was accurately and timely informed, including of the consequences of not using the days.
In this case, the Court criticised the lower court for failing to verify the exact number of remaining days and the timeliness of the employer’s invitation, emphasising the importance of clear, formal, and timely communication to avoid forfeiture of the right.

15 June 2025
Dismissal for economic reasons
Dismissal and presumption of knowledge: the recipient must prove objective impossibility
Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section

A public sector employee challenged his dismissal, claiming he had never received the notice, which had been delivered to his cohabiting mother.
He argued that his mother’s failure to inform him—motivated by a protective intent—combined with his compromised physical and mental state, prevented him from becoming aware of the dismissal.

The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge as untimely, applying the legal presumption of knowledge under Italian law for notices sent to one’s residence.
The Supreme Court upheld this position, confirming that the presumption of knowledge (Article 1335 of the Civil Code) can only be overcome by objective proof of impossibility, not simply by claiming unawareness.
Subjective elements, such as a family member’s protective intent, are not sufficient to override the presumption, which is based on proper delivery to the recipient’s domicile.
Without documented proof, the contents of the challenged notice are irrelevant.
The ruling reaffirms a strict approach aimed at ensuring certainty in deadlines for challenging dismissals.

20 May 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Refusing to wear the company uniform may cost you your job: dismissal for just cause is legitimate
Rome Labour Court

A security employee was dismissed for just cause after repeatedly refusing to wear the company uniform, as required by internal regulations.
In court, the employee claimed the dismissal was illegitimate, arguing that he disagreed with the company’s code of conduct and found the uniform requirement unjustified.

The Court rejected the claim, ruling that the worker’s five-month-long refusal was entirely unjustified and constituted a serious and repeated breach of contractual obligations.
According to the judge, the requirement to wear a uniform was legitimate, especially given the nature of the role, which involved public interaction and required visibility, decorum, and a consistent company image.

The employee’s persistent defiance, despite multiple warnings and the absence of valid reasons, was found to have damaged the trust-based employment relationship.
The ruling reiterates that, in the workplace, repeated and unjustified refusal to comply with organisational directives may justify dismissal for just cause, particularly when it affects the company’s operations and public image.

10 July 2025
Outsourcing
Contract changes and “light contracts”: the Supreme Court clarifies legitimacy criteria
Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section

Several employees working in debt collection requested the reestablishment of their employment relationship with the original company, claiming that the outsourcing contract with the successor company was a sham.
Their claim was rejected in the first and second instance, with the courts finding the outsourcing contract to be legitimate and the transfer compliant with Article 2112 of the Civil Code (regarding business transfers).

However, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, stating that the large number of workers and their professionalism alone are not enough to characterise an outsourcing contract as “light.”
The group of workers must also have organisational cohesion, specific know-how, and the contractor must have genuine managerial autonomy.

The Court also emphasised the need to verify the absence of direct control or management by the client company over the contractor’s employees, as that would indicate illegal labour intermediation.

The ruling confirms that, in labour-intensive outsourcing arrangements, it is crucial to establish the contractor’s actual independence in managing work and personnel, taking on entrepreneurial risk and using their own resources.

13 March 2025
Business unit transfer
Artificial creation of a business unit: transfer is void if solely aimed at expelling workers
Milan Labour Court

The Milan Labour Court examined once again the legitimacy of business unit transfers, in a case where some employees challenged the transfer of their employment from a bank to a third-party company.
The employees had been grouped into a newly created “business unit” and were specifically selected for transfer, following a framework agreement between the companies.

The Court ruled that the formation of a business unit cannot be the result of a purely ad hoc reorganisation designed solely for the transfer and removal of staff.
The judgment stresses that the unit must have pre-existed at the transferring company, with actual functional and organisational autonomy, and must not be the product of an arbitrary selection of personnel.

In this case, the structure was created exclusively for the purpose of the transfer and did not exist before the operation.
According to the Court, this manoeuvre circumvents protections for employees and renders the transfer invalid: employment relationships must therefore be reinstated under their original conditions.