15 September 2025
Industrial relations
Unilateral change of the national collective labour agreement: anti-union conduct in the absence of prior agreement
Court of Trani
Several trade unions filed a petition before the Court of Trani to denounce the anti-union conduct of a company which, in February 2025, had replaced the national collective labour agreement (CCNL) applied to its employees with a different one, without involving the unions, despite ongoing negotiations for the renewal of the previous sectoral agreement.
The Judge clarified that the employer’s choice of which collective agreement to apply falls within the scope of entrepreneurial freedom protected by Article 41 of the Constitution. However, this freedom is limited by the duties of fairness and good faith, particularly in relations with trade unions.
The Court held that the change of collective agreement, as it affects all workers in the company, constitutes a collective measure that must be subject to consultation and agreement with representative unions. The omission of such consultation infringes upon trade union prerogatives and amounts to anti-union conduct under Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute.
The Judge therefore declared the conduct to be anti-union and prohibited the company from applying the new collective agreement in the absence of an agreement with the relevant trade unions, while compensating legal costs in light of the complexity of the case.
30 October 2025
Industrial relations
The Constitutional Court extends the right to establish workplace union representatives (RSA) to “significantly representative” unions
Constitutional Court
The case originated from an appeal filed by an autonomous transport union, to which the employer had denied the right to establish a workplace union representation (RSA). The Labour Court of Modena, hearing the dispute, referred to the Constitutional Court the question of constitutionality of Article 19 of the Workers’ Statute, which grants such right only to unions that have signed or participated in the negotiation of the collective agreement applied within the company.
With Judgment No. 156 of 2025, the Court declared the constitutional illegitimacy of the provision insofar as it excludes trade unions that, while not having taken part in the negotiations or signed the collective agreement, are nonetheless significantly representative within the production unit.
The decision broadens trade union protection based on the principles of equality and trade union freedom enshrined in Articles 3 and 39 of the Constitution.
The Court observed that making the establishment of RSAs conditional upon participation in negotiations gives the employer a power to select its trade union counterpart that is incompatible with a pluralist system. Henceforth, unions that can demonstrate significant representativeness among workers will also be entitled to set up workplace representations and enjoy related prerogatives, marking a significant shift in industrial relations.
20 August 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal of an employee eligible for retirement is unlawful if the employment relationship tacitly continues
Supreme Court (Labour Section)
An employee had been dismissed on the grounds of having reached retirement age. The lower court had found the termination lawful, but the Court of Appeal later held it unlawful, finding that the employment relationship had in fact continued beyond the retirement threshold until the natural expiry of the contract under which the employee worked.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision, reiterating that the mere attainment of pensionable age does not give the employer an automatic right to terminate the contract. Where employment continues— even implicitly through conduct — the protections under Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute remain applicable up to the flexible limit of 70 years of age.
The Court further clarified that, in such cases, it is for the employer to prove the existence of any agreement limiting the duration of post-retirement employment, and the employer cannot rely on an automatic right of termination upon reaching pensionable age.
This decision underscores the need for companies to formalize any post-retirement employment arrangements clearly, while confirming for workers that eligibility for a pension does not in itself constitute just cause for dismissal.
27 October 2025
Employee monitoring
Company inspections of employees’ computers are lawful if provided for in internal policy
Supreme Court (Labour Section)
An employee challenged a disciplinary dismissal imposed after the company discovered, through checks on a company computer, extensive unauthorized access to confidential customer data and its transmission to third parties. The employee contested the legitimacy of the monitoring, claiming he had purchased the laptop and was never informed of potential company checks on devices.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, holding that the computer was still company property at the time of the inspection and that the employer had properly informed employees through its IT-use policy.
The Supreme Court confirmed this ruling, stating that monitoring activities are legitimate when the company has clearly informed employees of the possibility of checks in case of anomalies, in compliance with data protection rules. In this case, the numerous unauthorized accesses and external transfers of confidential documents amounted to a serious breach of diligence and loyalty duties, justifying dismissal for just cause.
25 July 2025
Dismissal for economic reasons
Dismissal for objective reasons: the duty of reassignment (repêchage) remains binding even in cases of alleged conflict of interest
Supreme Court (Labour Section)
A female employee was dismissed for objective reasons, allegedly due to incompatibility arising from her personal relationship with a physician working at a client facility. Both the lower court and the Court of Appeal ruled the dismissal unlawful, as the employer had not fulfilled the obligation of “repêchage”, i.e., the concrete duty to verify whether the employee could be assigned to other suitable duties within the organization.
The Supreme Court confirmed these rulings, reiterating that a dismissal for objective reasons is lawful only if the employer proves not only the suppression of the position but also the impossibility of redeploying the worker elsewhere.
The Court clarified that an alleged conflict of interest, even if arising from external contractual arrangements, does not justify omitting the repêchage obligation. Only where the company demonstrates that redeployment is objectively impossible can the dismissal be considered legitimate.
The company’s appeal was therefore fully rejected, with an order to pay legal costs.
2 October 2025
Self-employment and subordinate employment
Riders: the Supreme Court reaffirms the criteria for “hetero-organized” collaboration
Supreme Court (Labour Section)
A delivery worker sought recognition of the subordinate nature of his relationship with a digital platform. The lower courts had issued conflicting decisions — the first instance rejected the claim, while the Court of Appeal recognized an employment relationship.
The Supreme Court, confirming its previous rulings, clarified that riders’ collaborations fall within the scope of “hetero-organized” work whenever the performance is predominantly personal and continuous, and the organization of work — schedules, shifts, delivery areas — is determined by the client’s directive power, even if exercised through digital applications.
The Court emphasized that full subordination to disciplinary power is not required: it is sufficient that the worker be integrated into the company’s organizational system and functionally dependent on the client’s management decisions via the platform. This interpretation reaffirms the legislator’s intent to ensure riders a level of protection equivalent to that of employees, given the substantive similarity of working conditions.
20 October 2025
Social security and contributions
Early retirement: figurative contributions are also valid
Supreme Court (Labour Section)
A female worker applied for early retirement, including periods of figurative contributions (for sickness and unemployment) in her calculation. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, holding that 35 years of actual contributions were required, thus excluding non-working periods.
The Supreme Court overturned that decision, clarifying that under the system introduced by the 2011 reform, the 35-year requirement has been abolished, and early retirement is now available with 41 years and one month of contributions for women and 42 years and one month for men. In this framework, figurative contributions count toward the total requirement, as the law refers to “useful” contributory periods, not necessarily actual ones.
Conversely, the requirement of actual contributions applies only to workers whose first contribution was credited on or after 1 January 1996, for whom early retirement requires reaching 63 years of age and at least 20 years of actual contributions.
The ruling therefore confirms that, for ordinary early retirement, figurative contributions are fully valid for acquiring the right to pension benefits.
