September 24, 2025
Health and safety at work
Workplace accident: the worker is not required to prove employer’s fault
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker sought compensation for damages suffered following a serious injury to his left eye, caused by a fragment of iron during the cutting of a steel rod. The Trial Court and the Court of Appeal rejected the claim, finding that the dynamics of the event and the employer’s liability had not been proven, given that the employer had documented both the supply of and the training on the use of personal protective equipment.
The Supreme Court, overturning the decision, clarified that employer liability under Article 2087 of the Civil Code is of a contractual nature: the worker must allege the employer’s breach and prove the damage and the causal link with the work activity, but not the employer’s fault or a specific safety violation. It is instead up to the employer to prove that all preventive and safety measures required by law and good practice were adopted, including monitoring the actual use of protective equipment and ensuring adequate training.
The ruling reaffirms the centrality of the employer’s safety obligation as an active and continuous duty, requiring the prevention of all possible risks according to the best technical and organizational knowledge available at the time.
October 9, 2025
Resignation
Resignation during the probationary period: confirmation required also for working parents
Ministry of Labour
A local office requested clarification on whether the resignations submitted during the probationary period by a working mother or a parent of a young child must be formally confirmed.
The Ministry of Labour and Social Policies clarified that the obligation to confirm the resignation before the Labour Inspectorate also applies in these cases. The purpose of this procedure is to verify the genuineness of the worker’s intent and to prevent possible pressure or discriminatory conduct by the employer.
The Administration stressed that the confirmation is not a mere formality, but a substantial safeguard, ensuring that the decision to terminate the employment relationship is genuinely free and informed.
According to the Ministry’s interpretation, the rules requiring confirmation of resignations do not exclude the probationary period from their scope of application. Consequently, even when the employment relationship is still in its initial phase, a working mother or father must confirm their resignation before the local Labour Inspectorate, to ensure full freedom of choice and protection of parenthood.
September 18, 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal for just cause: valid even if the employee refuses to receive the letter
Court of Parma
An employee challenged a dismissal for just cause, claiming he had never received the disciplinary charge or the termination letter, asserting that he had been removed from the workplace without formal notice. The company, however, proved that supervisors had attempted to deliver the documents, reading and explaining their contents to the employee, who refused to accept them.
The Court of Parma dismissed the claim, clarifying that refusing to receive a dismissal notice does not affect its validity. As established by consistent case law, since the dismissal is a unilateral act that becomes effective once communicated, the recipient’s refusal cannot prevent its effects. The communication is deemed completed when it enters the recipient’s sphere of awareness.
The Court further confirmed that delivery of the dismissal letter can be proven by witness testimony, even when performed by company personnel. The employer thus fulfilled the burden of proving regular notification of the dismissal, making the termination legitimate.
Finally, the Court ordered the company to pay the amounts owed to the employee for severance pay and final entitlements, partially upholding the claim on that point alone.
April 8, 2025
Settlement, conciliation, consensual termination
In-company settlement: company premises are not suitable to ensure worker’s freedom
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker challenged his dismissal for just cause, claiming that the union settlement signed on the same day as the termination, and held on company premises, was invalid because it did not take place in a “protected venue.” The Trial Court and the Court of Appeal rejected the claim, considering the presence of a union representative sufficient to guarantee the worker’s free will.
The Supreme Court overturned this conclusion, ruling that company premises cannot be considered neutral or suitable to guarantee the worker’s freedom of self-determination. Union assistance must be effective, but the context in which conciliation takes place must also ensure neutrality. Therefore, a settlement signed on company premises—even with a union representative present—cannot be regarded as valid for the purposes of rendering the agreement unchallengeable under labour law.
The decision reaffirms that worker protection in settlement proceedings requires both the presence of a union representative and the conduct of the procedure in a truly protected venue, such as union offices or before competent public authorities.
October 8, 2025
Working hours, holidays, leave
Unused holidays: the employer must prove that the worker was allowed to take rest
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker, after termination of employment, claimed compensation in lieu of unused holidays. The employer argued that holidays had been duly made available, but the employee had chosen not to take them.
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, finding the missed holidays attributable to the worker’s choice. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, clarifying that the burden of proving that holidays were actually granted and that the worker had a real opportunity to use them rests solely on the employer.
The right to holidays has a mandatory and constitutional nature, protecting both physical and mental health and ensuring the recovery of energy. It is therefore not enough to show that holidays were theoretically available: the employer must prove that the worker was concretely able to take them, with proper information and an actual organizational plan.
The Court reaffirmed that compensation in lieu is owed whenever the employer fails to prove that the employee was genuinely allowed to take accrued holidays, even in the absence of a formal request from the worker.
September 20, 2025
Job duties and downgrading
Demotion: compensation is due even without financial loss
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker sued his employer, claiming that he had been assigned for a long period to duties inferior to those for which he had been hired, seeking compensation for damage due to demotion.
The Court of Appeal, while acknowledging the demotion, rejected the claim for lack of proof of financial loss.
The Supreme Court overturned this decision, clarifying that damage from demotion does not necessarily coincide with economic loss. It may also consist of harm to professionalism, reputation, or dignity—values of constitutional importance.
According to the Court, the worker is not required to prove specific financial damage; it is sufficient to demonstrate the employer’s conduct that harmed professional standing. In such cases, the judge may assess damages on an equitable basis, considering the duration of the demotion, the nature of the tasks, and the impact on the worker’s career.
September 24, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Disciplinary suspension legitimate even if only one of the charges is proven
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A bank employee challenged a six-day suspension from work and pay, imposed following multiple disciplinary charges. The Trial Court upheld the claim, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the sanction legitimate as it was proportionate even to a single proven charge: the improper execution of several transactions on a client’s account without necessary checks.
The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s decision, reiterating that when a disciplinary sanction is based on multiple charges, it remains valid if at least one is proven and sufficiently serious to justify the measure.
The Court also endorsed the assessment of the timeliness of the disciplinary procedure, noting that the employer may conduct internal inquiries before issuing the formal charge, provided this occurs within a reasonable time from discovery of the facts.
Lastly, the Court excluded any lateness in notifying the sanction, since that objection had not been raised in earlier proceedings. The worker’s appeal was therefore dismissed, with an order to pay costs.
