August 8, 2025
Fixed-term employment
Extension of generic grounds regime for fixed-term contracts until 2026
The deadline has been extended to December 31, 2026, within which, in the absence of a qualified collective agreement, the individual fixed-term employment contract may specify the reason (causale) that allows the extension of the contract beyond the twelve-month limit for technical, production, or organizational needs.
August 7, 2025
Maternity and paternity
Paternity leave: INPS extends the right to the intended mother in same-sex couples
INPS
A female worker, the intended parent in a female same-sex couple, had requested recognition of compulsory paternity leave. The matter was referred to the Constitutional Court, which, in ruling no. 115 of 2025, declared unconstitutional the provision excluding this right. According to the judges, it is possible to identify in same-sex couples a figure equivalent to the paternal role, distinguishing between the biological mother and the intended mother. The latter, if listed as a parent in the civil registry or by court order, is entitled to 10 working days of compulsory paternity leave (20 in the case of multiple births), with an allowance equal to 100% of pay. INPS, in the message in question, confirmed that the employer must advance the allowance, unless otherwise provided.
The change took effect on July 24, 2025, the day after the decision was published in the Official Gazette.
June 26, 2025
Business transfer
Transfer of a “light” branch: workers’ opposition can invalidate the transfer
Ravenna Court
The Ravenna Court ruled on the transfer of a “light” branch of business, characterized by the almost exclusive transfer of staff and not of significant assets or productive resources. In the case at hand, the vast majority of the workers involved objected to the transfer of their employment relationship to the transferee, challenging the transaction.
The judgment reviews the regulatory evolution and the principles of the European Court of Justice, emphasizing that EU law protects workers’ rights even in “light” branch transfers. However, the Court noted that if most workers oppose and the transfer is based almost exclusively on manpower, the very basis of a business branch transfer is missing: there is no actual transfer. In the absence of broad worker consent, the employment relationship must therefore continue with the original employer. This ruling represents important protection against forced outsourcing and provides an EU-oriented interpretation of Article 2112 of the Civil Code.
June 5, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal for just cause: legitimate even for only one of the alleged incidents
Naples Court of Appeal
A worker employed as a network installer challenged his dismissal for just cause. He had been accused of offensive and aggressive behavior toward colleagues on three separate occasions during working hours. In the last incident, in a sudden outburst of anger, the worker violently struck the glass of a restroom door in the changing rooms, shattering it in front of other employees. The Court of Appeal ruled that the first two incidents, though proven and possibly repeated, were not serious enough to justify dismissal. However, the judges deemed the third incident alone sufficient to justify termination.
The employer had assessed the worker’s conduct both individually and as a whole; this allowed the judges to consider, for the purposes of evaluating the sanction, even a single episode. The Court reiterated that, in matters of just cause, a judge may base the decision on only one incident, provided it is serious and indicative of a breach that undermines the trust bond. In this case, the impulsive and dangerous behavior revealed a marked lack of self-control, justifying dismissal.
July 9, 2025
Business transfer
Business transfer: the worker may also challenge the inter-company agreement
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A worker challenged in court a business transfer in which he was involved, disputing the legitimacy of the transfer and arguing its lack of substance. The companies involved argued that the action was inadmissible, claiming that the transfer agreement was merely an arrangement between businesses, not subject to challenge by employees.
The Court of Cassation rejected this argument, affirming that a worker has a legally relevant interest in verifying the actual existence of the elements constituting a business transfer. The labour judge may therefore ascertain the inexistence of the transaction, with consequent continuity of the employment relationship with the transferor.
According to the Court, the formal validity of the agreement between companies is irrelevant: what matters is its actual suitability to constitute a business transfer under labour law. Therefore, the worker’s challenge is fully admissible when aimed at contesting the termination of their employment with the transferor.
August 4, 2025
Contracting
Transport contracts or service contracts? The Court of Cassation confirms joint liability for service contracts
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A worker brought a claim to recover wage differences accrued while employed by his employer, also seeking joint liability of the contracting companies with which his employer had entered into agreements formally labeled as transport and sub-transport contracts. The Court of Appeal had already held that these arrangements were, in fact, service contracts for transport, triggering the joint liability regime under the law. The Court of Cassation confirmed this, reiterating that a service contract exists when the contractor organizes work with its own resources and staff, assumes business risk, and maintains an ongoing relationship not limited to individual tasks.
Consequently, the worker can claim wage differences not only from his employer but also from the contracting companies, jointly liable.
June 26, 2025
Business transfer
Transfer of a business branch: without actual and pre-existing functional autonomy, employment contracts cannot be transferred
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A bank transferred a business branch dedicated to debt collection, while retaining the technical and administrative structure and granting the transferee a management mandate. The transferred workers challenged the transaction, alleging a lack of autonomy in the transferred branch and therefore the necessity of their consent to transfer their contracts. The trial court accepted the workers’ arguments, while the Court of Appeal took a different view, deeming the transfer valid and emphasizing the dematerialized nature of the transferred business unit (consisting essentially of specialized staff) and the non-essential nature of transferring related infrastructure.
The Court of Cassation, however, sided with the workers. The judges stated that the autonomy required by law cannot rely on service contracts between transferor and transferee. In this case, technical and administrative support remained with the transferor. A branch, to qualify as such, must be capable of operating independently on the market, including with third parties, with an organization already in place at the time of transfer. The Court reaffirmed that functional autonomy must be assessed together with pre-existence. The transfer was therefore declared ineffective, and the transferor was ordered to reinstate the employment relationships.
