11 September 2025
Disability
Accommodation obligations also for those assisting a disabled family member: the EU principle extends to caregivers
Court of Justice
A female employee asked her employer to be assigned to fixed morning shifts so she could care for her severely disabled son, but the company rejected the request, granting only temporary concessions. After the claim was rejected in the first two levels of Italian courts, the Court of Cassation referred the case for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The EU Court recognized that a worker assisting a disabled family member may also invoke the prohibition of indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability. In particular, a seemingly neutral workplace practice – such as shift organization – may constitute discrimination if it disadvantages those who, though not disabled themselves, provide care to a disabled relative.
The principle of equal treatment, as established by Directive 2000/78, must therefore be interpreted in light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, extending protections also to family caregivers. Such workers, if discriminated against in workplace organization due to care responsibilities, must be able to obtain from the employer “reasonable accommodation” measures similar to those available to disabled employees.
16 September 2025
Business transfer
Transfer from Alitalia to Ita: a business branch that reignites the debate on protections
Court of Rome
A group of workers, previously employed by Alitalia under extraordinary administration, sued the new company Ita Airways to obtain recognition of the continuation of their employment relationship with the new employer, invoking the rules on business transfers.
According to the claimants, the transfer of the Aviation assets from Alitalia to Ita – formalized by contract on 14 October 2021 and followed by Ita’s operations starting the next day – contained all the elements of a business branch transfer, both in terms of objective continuity (aircraft, slots, routes, personnel, brand) and in terms of the procedure’s conservation purposes.
The Court reconstructed the events in detail, noting that the continuation of activities and the seamless resumption of flight operations constituted symptomatic elements of business continuity. Nonetheless, the actual application of labor law provisions is currently hindered by the interpretative rule in Art. 6 of Decree-Law 131/2023, which always considers transfers under Art. 27, para. 2, letter b-bis, of Legislative Decree 270/1999 as liquidatory.
Believing that this national rule may conflict with EU law, the judge referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess the compatibility between the declared purpose of the procedure and the true nature of the operation.
20 May 2025
Health and safety at work
Workplace accident: the Court of Cassation reinforces employer liability for safety omissions
Court of Cassation, Labor Section
A worker employed by a company specializing in metal carpentry suffered serious injuries after falling from scaffolding lacking adequate protections. The Court of Appeal had ordered the employer to pay damages, noting the absence of adequate preventive measures, including the failure to provide a guardrail.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision, reiterating the principle that the employer must ensure workers’ safety through the adoption of all necessary and appropriate measures to prevent accidents, regardless of the worker’s conduct. Even if the employee acts imprudently, the employer remains liable when the harmful event stems from a failure to meet safety obligations.
As guarantor of safety, the employer must prove they did everything possible to prevent harm. Otherwise, they are fully liable for the consequences, both civil and criminal.
6 July 2025
Pay and benefits
No absorption of the “superminimo” if the company has established a favorable practice for workers
Court of Appeal of Milan
Since 2018, a company had absorbed the individual superminimo (extra pay above the contractual minimum) into new pay items introduced with the renewal of the collective bargaining agreement. An employee challenged the operation, claiming the right to maintain the previous pay level. The Court of First Instance agreed, finding the employer’s conduct unlawful and ordering payment of wage differences.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. According to the judges, while the superminimo is generally absorbable in the case of pay increases, it cannot be reduced when a contrary company practice exists, as in this case. For decades, the company had never absorbed the superminimo, even during multiple prior contract renewals, thereby consolidating a favorable practice for workers. Such repeated and generalized conduct amounts to a company practice, which has the force of a collective source and can only be overridden by explicit withdrawal or by a different collective regulation.
The decision highlights that an employer cannot simply change its conduct unilaterally to nullify the effects of a company practice: a clear and unequivocal act is required, which in this case never occurred.
15 July 2025
Industrial relations
Minimum contribution: Cassation confirms that the benchmark is the collective agreement of the actual sector
Court of Cassation, Labor Section
A company challenged an INPS contribution notice for over €350,000, claiming that contributions should be calculated based on the Multiservices collective agreement applied in the company, as modified by a proximity agreement. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal dismissed the claims, considering correct the use of the Commerce sector collective agreement as the contribution benchmark.
The Supreme Court confirmed, clarifying that, for social security purposes, company-level or proximity agreements are irrelevant. Only collective agreements signed by the most representative national trade unions, relating to the sector actually performed by the company, count. Accordingly, the so-called minimum contribution must be determined based on the collective agreement objectively corresponding to the employer’s business activity, even if the company applies a different contract, whether more favorable or less costly. This principle is now well-established to ensure uniformity and certainty in social security contribution calculations.
27 May 2025
Dismissal for just cause
No reinstatement if the disciplinary charge is late: only indemnity protection applies
Court of Cassation, Labor Section
An employee sued, claiming unlawful dismissal on disciplinary grounds. He argued that he received the disciplinary notice only nine months after the conclusion of the company’s internal investigation, which had uncovered the alleged misconduct. The Court of Appeal considered the delay unjustified and significant, finding it had substantially compromised the disciplinary process, and therefore ordered reinstatement.
The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a procedural defect, though relevant, should not automatically lead to reinstatement if the contested facts are real and proven. The Supreme Court agreed with the employer. It held that the lateness of the charge, though a breach of the timeliness principle, does not negate the material fact. Under Art. 18, para. 4, of the Workers’ Statute, reinstatement requires that the alleged fact did not occur. Procedural defects, even serious ones, only entitle the worker to indemnity protection.
11 July 2025
Duties and demotion
Damage from demotion: lack of employee training also counts
Court of Cassation, Labor Section
An employee brought legal action seeking recognition of demotion and the employer’s condemnation both to reinstate him in his prior duties and to pay damages for loss of professional standing, to be quantified equitably.
The Court of Appeal granted the claim, finding evidence of both the demotion and the resulting damage.
The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the worker, clarifying that in cases of professional downgrading, non-economic damages are compensable whenever there is a serious violation of workers’ rights protected at the constitutional level. One parameter for assessing compensation is the lack of training or updating of the worker regarding the sector to which they were assigned, especially in fields – as in this case – characterized by rapid technological evolution.
