27 May 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal via WhatsApp and email: the written form is preserved, but that’s not all
Catania Court
An employee challenged his dismissal, claiming that the termination was null for breach of the requirement of written form. According to him, the termination had been communicated orally, without any formal written act.
The Court rejected the claim, noting that there had been written communications sufficient to meet the formal requirement. In particular, evidence showed a WhatsApp message dated 16 April in which the employee was invited to sign “the notice”, as well as a subsequent email dated 15 May indicating the termination of the employment relationship, accompanied by the transmission of the Unilav form by the company.
The judge held that these communications proved compliance with the obligation of written form, even though they were not drafted in the traditional format of a dismissal letter. What matters is not the informal medium, but the unequivocal recognizability of the employer’s intention to terminate.
The decision also clarified that, until the written communication is received, any oral termination remains ineffective and the employment relationship continues. The burden of taking action after termination nevertheless falls on the employee: in the case at hand, the unjustified delay in offering work performance excluded any right to damages.
The ruling confirms that tools such as emails and instant messages may fulfill the written form requirement, provided they are unequivocal, while also reminding employees of their duty of diligence in reacting after receiving notice of termination.
9 May 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Refusal of new working hours justifies dismissal for insubordination
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A shop assistant refused to comply with the new working hours imposed by her employer. The employer had modified the work schedule within its organizational powers, without changing the workplace or the daily working time. After repeated failures to comply with the new directives, the employee was dismissed for just cause.
The Court of Appeal had deemed the dismissal unlawful, holding that the employer had not proven the employee’s intent or awareness of her breach. However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision, recognizing the lawfulness of the dismissal for insubordination.
The Court affirmed that the employer, in exercising its managerial power, may legitimately change working hours if this respects contractual limits and does not alter essential elements of the employment. The employee’s repeated and unjustified refusal was therefore considered a serious breach, sufficient to justify termination for just cause.
3 July 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal for objective justified reason: strengthened repêchage duty for employees assisting disabled relatives
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning dismissal for objective justified reason of a worker benefiting from leave under Law No. 104/1992 to care for his disabled wife. After the employee refused an offer of relocation with hours less compatible with his family needs, the Court reaffirmed the employer’s duty of repêchage: dismissal must always be a last resort, and the employer must check all possible options for redeployment, balancing business needs with duties of solidarity.
In this case, the Supreme Court criticized the Court of Appeal for failing to consider that, after the dismissal, the company had made new hires with schedules compatible with the worker’s requests. The principle established strengthens protection for employees caring for disabled family members, requiring a particularly strict review of possible redeployment before resorting to dismissal for objective reasons.
16 May 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Employee dismissed for using a job candidate’s phone number for personal purposes
Milan Court of Appeal
This case concerned an employee, in charge of handling internal correspondence, who had extracted the mobile number of a job applicant from her CV, processed for work purposes, and contacted her via WhatsApp for personal reasons. Although he stopped messaging upon her request, the conduct was considered seriously damaging to the employer’s trust, leading to dismissal.
The lower court had deemed the dismissal lawful, considering the conduct a serious breach of contractual obligations and of the GDPR, undermining the fiduciary relationship. The employee appealed, arguing that his behavior was not so serious since he had not disclosed the data to third parties and had promptly stopped messaging.
However, the Court of Appeal confirmed the lawfulness of dismissal for just cause, stressing that improper use of data, even if not shared with third parties, still violated company directives and privacy regulations, constituting a serious breach of duties of diligence, integrity, and loyalty.
3 July 2025
Illness and injury
Illness during wage supplementation (CIG): period not counted in sick leave entitlement (comporto)
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that, if illness occurs during a period of suspension under wage supplementation schemes (CIG), the sick leave days cannot be counted toward the maximum sick leave period (comporto). In the case at hand, an employee challenged his dismissal for exceeding the comporto, contesting the inclusion of fifteen sick days that had occurred while he was suspended under CIG.
The Court upheld the claim, clarifying that the principle of CIG taking precedence over illness concerns not only economic treatment but also the legal nature of the absence: during suspension under CIG, the illness regime does not apply, meaning it need not be reported, certified, or subject to checks, and cannot be included in the comporto. This interpretation protects employees from dismissal based on absences that do not, in fact, interrupt their work obligation due to suspension.
7 July 2025
Working hours, holidays, leave
Unilateral change of part-time hours unlawful: urgent protection and compensation without need for proof
Como Court
The Como Court ruled on an urgent application filed by a part-time worker, mother of two young children, whose working hours had been changed without her consent and without any signed “elastic clauses.” The company had unilaterally altered shifts and introduced Sunday work, disrupting the worker’s family arrangements, although previously every change had been mutually agreed.
The judge held the change unlawful, affirming that working hours in part-time contracts must be predetermined and can only be changed with the employee’s explicit written consent. In the absence of validly signed elastic clauses, the change is null, and the employer must reinstate the original schedule.
The Court also granted the employee the right to compensation equal to 25% of her monthly pay for each month of the unlawful change, without needing to prove specific damage: compensation arises automatically from the mere violation of the law, confirming stronger protection for part-time employees.
26 June 2025
Business transfer
Transfer of a business branch: Supreme Court reaffirms requirement of functional autonomy
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the transfer of a business branch in the debt recovery sector. Some employees challenged the transfer to a new company, claiming the branch lacked real organizational and functional autonomy. Both the first instance and appellate courts agreed, finding that the transferred unit could not operate independently in the market without support from the transferor or reorganization by the transferee.
The Supreme Court confirmed this approach, reiterating that a transferred business branch must constitute a genuine enterprise, able to carry out the relevant activity autonomously with its own resources and without relying on the transferor’s structure or restructuring by the transferee. This ruling reinforces the principle that transfers cannot concern aggregates lacking true autonomy, thereby ensuring real protection for affected employees.
