September 2, 2025
Severance pay, notice period and other termination allowances
Notice period: the employee’s waiver does not exempt the company from contributions
Supreme Court of Cassation, Labor Section
A company, following the dismissal of thirteen employees, did not pay the indemnity in lieu of notice because the employees had waived it as part of settlement agreements. INPS challenged the lack of contributions on these amounts, arguing that the employees’ waiver was irrelevant for social security purposes. The Bologna Court of Appeal had ruled in favor of the company, excluding the contribution obligation. INPS appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the employees’ waiver could not affect the contribution obligation, since the indemnity in lieu of notice has a wage-related nature and falls under the rule of minimum contributions.
The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, reiterating a well-established principle: agreements between employer and employee cannot affect the contribution relationship with the social security authority. The indemnity in lieu of notice is subject to contributions from the moment the dismissal without notice takes effect, regardless of the employee’s waiver. Such waiver remains valid in the employment relationship but cannot be enforced against INPS.
August 26, 2025
Social security benefits
If the employment relationship is reconstructed only ex post, INPS cannot demand repayment of unemployment benefits
Supreme Court of Cassation, Labor Section
An employee had received unemployment benefits for one year after the termination of his last fixed-term contract. Subsequently, a final judgment declared the first of the successive contracts unlawful, converting the relationship into permanent employment with the right to compensation equal to twelve months’ salary.
INPS requested repayment of the unemployment benefits, claiming that since the employment relationship had been reconstructed ex tunc, there was no unemployment status and therefore no entitlement to the benefit.
The United Sections of the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had excluded repayment: in the absence of actual remuneration or contributions during the period between the end of the contract and reinstatement, unemployment status cannot be excluded. The indemnity under Article 32, paragraph 5, Law No. 183/2010 is lump-sum and compensatory in nature and is not sufficient, by itself, to fill the economic gap that justifies social security protection.
September 4, 2025
Salary and benefits
Company electric cars: no additional fringe benefit if charging is covered by the company
Italian Revenue Agency
A company submitted to the Revenue Agency a case concerning the use of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles assigned to employees for mixed (business and personal) use. The company intended to cover the cost of charging these vehicles – by providing a card to be used at public charging stations – similarly to how fuel expenses are reimbursed for traditional cars.
To avoid unequal treatment between vehicle types, employees assigned electric or hybrid cars would be required to periodically report business mileage so that private mileage could be calculated by difference. If a certain threshold was exceeded, the related cost would be charged to the employee.
The Agency clarified that charging costs – considered equivalent to “fuel” – are already included in the ACI lump-sum value forming the taxable base of the fringe benefit. Therefore, providing a charging card does not generate additional taxable income. Moreover, any amounts withheld from the employee for exceeding mileage limits may be deducted from the ACI conventional value, thereby reducing the taxable fringe benefit.
August 5, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Aggressive conduct before a work shift: the Supreme Court limits disciplinary dismissal
Supreme Court of Cassation, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for just cause after spitting on and kicking a colleague’s car mirror shortly before his work shift began. The Court of Appeal had upheld the dismissal, considering the conduct not minor but rather a serious violation of civil coexistence rules, justifying immediate termination.
The Supreme Court, however, upheld the employee’s appeal, noting that the term “misconduct” under the collective agreement does not refer only to omissions but also to active behavior. Furthermore, seriousness alone does not absolutely distinguish conduct justifying dismissal from that punishable with lesser sanctions, as the collective agreement provides for a gradation of penalties based on severity.
The Court also noted that the incident occurred outside working hours and unrelated to work performance, which further supports that dismissal is not automatically justified. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal’s decision was overturned and remanded for reconsideration under the correct contractual framework.
September 9, 2025
Executives
Supplementary allowance is due to the executive if the company hinders conciliation
Supreme Court of Cassation, Labor Section
An executive employed by an automotive group and seconded abroad for many years was dismissed and requested various payments from the company, including the supplementary allowance provided for by the company’s collective agreement. This allowance was conditional on signing a union conciliation agreement waiving the right to challenge the dismissal.
The trial court had only partially upheld the worker’s claims, while the Turin Court of Appeal extended the entitlements to include the supplementary allowance. The company appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that in the absence of a conciliation agreement, the sum was not due.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, clarifying that the right to the supplementary allowance arises when the failure to sign the conciliation agreement is attributable to the employer’s improper conduct. In this case, the company had not indicated the timing or procedure for conciliation, effectively preventing completion of the process.
According to the Court, in the presence of conduct contrary to good faith, the so-called condictio ficta (fiction of fulfillment) applies: the allowance must be recognized despite the absence of the union agreement. The ruling reaffirms that the company, while the condition is pending, has a duty to cooperate in good faith without creating obstacles that could prejudice the executive’s rights.
April 16, 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal via WhatsApp: valid if the Unilav form is delivered to the employee
Naples Court
Some employees challenged their dismissal in court, arguing that it was oral and therefore invalid for lack of the written form required by law. In particular, they contested the company’s transmission via WhatsApp of the Unilav form notifying termination for objective reasons.
The Naples North Court rejected the claims, clarifying that electronic transmission of the Unilav form fully satisfies the written form requirement, provided the document includes the parties’ details, the date, and the grounds for dismissal, and is brought to the employee’s attention. Validity depends not on the medium used but on the certainty that the employee became aware of it.
The ruling confirms a settled case law orientation that digital means, if they guarantee clarity and attribution to the employer, satisfy the statutory requirement of written form ad substantiam.
August 5, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal for improper use of a badge is lawful, even if based on indirect monitoring
Supreme Court of Cassation, Labor Section
An employee challenged her disciplinary dismissal following a report from the HR department, which had found irregularities in her badge use. The company had verified, by cross-checking with video surveillance footage, that the employee had colleagues clock in for her on days she was absent.
The Court of Appeal, confirming the first instance decision, had ruled the dismissal unlawful, holding that the monitoring was carried out in violation of regulations on remote surveillance technologies.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling, finding the dismissal lawful and clarifying that, with regard to remote monitoring, the use of images from audiovisual systems installed for security purposes is legitimate where data are acquired incidentally and not systematically, as in this case. Such acquisition is lawful if not aimed at monitoring work activity but still capable of documenting a serious breach of contractual obligations.
