July 4, 2025
Null dismissal
A dismissal issued by someone without authority is always null.
Court of Appeal of Florence

A female employee challenged her dismissal, which had been communicated by someone lacking delegation over personnel management. The Trial Court, in the first instance, had rejected the claim, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision.

According to the Florence judges, for a dismissal to be valid, it must come from a person authorized to act in the name and on behalf of the employer, with formally attributed powers. In the case at hand, the individual who had signed the termination letter was neither a director nor formally delegated by the company.

The Court recalled the well-established principle that the lack of authority of the person signing the dismissal entails the nullity of the act, as it has no legal effect. Furthermore, nullity may be invoked even if the recipient of the act was aware of the lack of authority or accepted it without immediate objection.

The ruling strengthens workers’ protection against irregularly adopted decisions, reaffirming the centrality of formally attributed powers in the management of employment relationships.

May 23, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal of an unfaithful cashier is proportionate even without serious financial damage.
Supreme Court, Labour Section

A cashier was dismissed for repeatedly failing to record sales and issue receipts. The employee brought legal action, claiming the dismissal was unlawful since the sums involved were small and there was no proof of misappropriation.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the dismissal. The Court recalled that an employee’s conduct may constitute a serious breach of the duties of diligence and loyalty even if it does not amount to a criminal offence, where it undermines the bond of trust that underpins the employment relationship. According to the Court, just cause for dismissal exists even in the absence of significant financial damage or a crime, provided that the conduct irreversibly undermines the employer’s trust in the worker’s future compliance.

June 10, 2025
Dismissal for economic reasons
Dismissal for objective justified reason: the Supreme Court clarifies when the employment relationship terminates.
Supreme Court, Labour Section

An employee applied for extraordinary leave to care for his disabled mother on the same day the company had concluded, without agreement, the conciliation procedure required under the Fornero Law for dismissal due to objective justified reason. The company had already communicated termination of employment effective February 8, with waiver of notice, and formalized the decision by letter two days later. INPS rejected the leave request, arguing the employment relationship had already ended before the application.

The Supreme Court clarified that, in dismissals for objective justified reason under the Fornero Law, it is necessary to distinguish between the communication of the intention to terminate and the actual cessation of the relationship. The latter depends on the employer’s decision, such as granting leave or waiving notice. In this case, since the employee was on leave until February 8, the leave application was deemed timely, as the employment relationship was still in force until that date.

June 28, 2025
Working hours, holidays, leave
Midweek public holidays: the employee may waive rest only through individual or collective agreement.
Supreme Court, Labour Section

Some employees working shifts in an airport public service requested recognition of their right to abstain from work on midweek public holidays. The Trial Court and the Court of Appeal upheld their claims, considering the right to holiday rest absolute and not subject to derogation by collective bargaining or established company practices.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the employer’s appeal, clarifying that while the right not to work on public holidays is recognized by law, it is also waivable: it can be relinquished through an individual agreement or a collective agreement to which the employee has expressly mandated adherence.

The Court also stated that it is not necessary for the collective agreement to expressly impose work on holidays. It suffices that the agreement, if referred to in the individual contract, regulates a shift system that includes holidays. In such cases, it is presumed that a balance has been struck between the right to rest and the need for service continuity, allowing a legitimate contractual waiver of holiday rest.

July 3, 2025
Pay and benefits
Company cars for mixed use: new tax rules and transitional regime for fringe benefits.
Italian Revenue Agency

In its Circular No. 10 of July 3, 2025, the Revenue Agency outlined the new rules introduced by the 2025 Budget Law on the taxation of employment income, with particular reference to vehicles granted for mixed (business and private) use. From January 1, 2025, for newly registered cars, motorcycles, and mopeds assigned under contracts signed and delivered after that date, the taxable fringe benefit will equal 50% of the value calculated on a conventional mileage of 15,000 km, according to ACI tables, net of any deductions. Significant reductions apply: only 10% for fully electric vehicles and 20% for plug-in hybrids.

For vehicles ordered by December 31, 2024, and granted for mixed use between January 1 and June 30, 2025, the previous (in some cases more favorable) regime still applies, avoiding penalties for companies and workers. The delivery date of the vehicle remains decisive for applying the transitional regime. The Circular further clarifies that, for all cases outside the new and transitional rules, taxation will follow the “normal value” criterion, limited to the share of private use.

May 9, 2025
Transfer of business
Business transfer and retrocession: the Supreme Court strengthens worker protection.
Supreme Court, Labour Section

A female employee of an ice cream shop, managed under lease by a third-party company, was notified by her employer of business closure due to expiry of the lease contract. The owner company, having regained control of the business, declared it had no obligations toward the employee. Shortly after, however, a new lessee reopened the business at the same premises with the same brand, rehiring part of the staff.

The employee took legal action to have continuity of her employment recognized, invoking Article 2112 of the Civil Code against both the owner company and the new manager. After rejection by the Trial Court and confirmation on appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the claim, ruling that the retrocession of a business branch, even with subsequent re-leasing, does not interrupt employment continuity, absent a valid and effective dismissal.

According to the Court, a temporary suspension of activity due to restructuring does not exclude continuation of employment, since Article 2112 applies to all transfers of business, including retrocession, to ensure job stability. Therefore, the outgoing company’s communication could not be considered a dismissal, but merely information about the transfer of the employment relationship to the new employer.

July 4, 2025
Remote work – “Smart working”
Riders and digital platforms: insurance coverage and INAIL protections clarified.
INAIL

INAIL has updated the insurance coverage framework for those working via digital platforms, particularly bicycle couriers, incorporating guidance from the Ministry of Labour’s Circular No. 9 of April 18, 2025. According to INAIL, delivery work carried out through platforms may qualify as self-employment, subordinate employment, or coordinated collaboration, depending on the actual conditions. In all cases, insurance costs are borne by the platform operator.

For self-employment, a conventional daily remuneration applies, while in cases of subordination or coordinated collaboration, premiums are calculated on actual pay or on the applicable collective agreement rates. The Circular also confirms that coverage extends to workers making deliveries on foot or with vehicles other than those expressly specified, effectively broadening the scope of insured persons. With this measure, INAIL aligns its action with evolving legislation and case law, granting full protection against accidents and occupational diseases even to those engaged in new and hybrid work arrangements.