14 November 2025
Resignations
Resignations during the probationary period: validation by the Labour Inspectorate is still required
Ministry of Labour
An employer asked the Ministry of Labour to clarify whether the validation of resignations—required as a safeguard for parenthood—is also necessary when a female or male employee resigns during the probationary period.
The Ministry, after obtaining the opinion of the Legislative Office, specified that the validation requirement also applies in this case. The rule, introduced to prevent pressure or discriminatory conduct against working parents, has an autonomous nature with respect to the prohibition on dismissal and applies until the child reaches three years of age.
Validation of resignations is therefore a protective mechanism intended to safeguard the worker’s freedom of choice at a particularly delicate moment, ensuring that the decision to terminate the employment relationship is genuinely voluntary.
The Ministry noted that Article 55, paragraph 4, of the Consolidated Act on maternity and paternity does not provide any exemption for the probationary period and that, in line with the purpose of the rule, protection must also extend to resignations submitted during this phase. It follows that a pregnant worker or a parent within the first three years of the child’s life must obtain validation from the Territorial Labour Inspectorate even if the resignation occurs during the probationary period.
11 November 2025
Industrial relations
Anti-union conduct: corporate procedures obstructing the right to strike are unlawful
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A company had introduced service provisions requiring collection staff, during strikes, to complete a series of tasks both before and during the collective work stoppage. These procedures, lasting up to sixty minutes and subject to disciplinary sanctions if not followed, were intended—according to the company—to safeguard revenue management and reduce economic losses from the strike.
The union brought an action under Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute, alleging an undue restriction of workers’ freedom to join the strike. The Florence Court of Appeal upheld the claim, deeming the company’s rules to be anti-union— a decision confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Court of Cassation reiterated that an employer may adopt organisational measures to mitigate the effects of a strike, but such measures must not interfere with the individual worker’s freedom to participate. Only precautions aimed at preventing damage to the company’s productivity are legitimate—not those that limit the freedom to strike or impose unpaid work activities.
The loss in production is an inherent aspect of a strike as a legitimate form of pressure; different, however, is the damage to productivity, which alone justifies protective organisational measures.
7 November 2025
Temporary agency work
Fixed-term agency work: exceeding 24 months converts the relationship into open-ended employment with the user company
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A worker employed through fixed-term agency contracts for more than three years at the same company sought recognition of an open-ended employment relationship with the user undertaking. The Brescia Court of Appeal upheld the claim, finding that the repeated temporary agency assignments exceeded the 24-month limit set by Legislative Decree No. 81/2015, resulting in the establishment of a direct employment relationship with the user company.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision, clarifying that the 24-month duration limit—introduced by Decree-Law 87/2018—also applies to fixed-term agency work and that exceeding this limit triggers conversion into open-ended employment not only with the agency but also with the user company.
The Court also clarified that, for the purposes of calculating the limit, all assignments must be counted, even if not continuous, performed at the same user company, regardless of the number of formal contracts signed or any replacement-related justifications. The ruling reaffirms an approach aimed at preserving the temporary nature of agency work and preventing abuses, recognising the de facto unity of the relationship when the worker’s use by the same company exceeds the statutory limit.
11 November 2025
Industrial relations
Early replacement of the collective agreement: according to the Court of Cassation, it is anti-union conduct
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A company had replaced, before its expiry, the collective agreement applied to its employees, introducing a different agreement through a “harmonisation agreement” signed with other trade unions. The union excluded from negotiations challenged the employer’s conduct before the courts and obtained recognition—at both first instance and appeal—that the behaviour was anti-union.
The Court of Cassation confirmed the lower courts’ decisions, reiterating that the employer cannot unilaterally terminate a collective agreement before its natural expiry. This power, the Court clarified, belongs exclusively to the contracting parties—trade unions and employers’ associations—who also determine the consequences.
Therefore, the early replacement of a collective agreement with another, even if signed by multiple unions, constitutes anti-union conduct when it infringes the prerogatives and role of the original signatory union. The Supreme Court thus rejected the company’s appeal and confirmed the protection of trade union autonomy and representation.
25 October 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Disciplinary dismissal unlawful if the employer was already aware of the worker’s dual role
Rome Court of Appeal
A worker employed as head of management control was dismissed for just cause on the grounds that he had carried out competing activities as a director of another company operating in the same sector. The Rome Tribunal deemed the dismissal legitimate, finding that the company was unaware of this role at the time of hiring.
The Rome Court of Appeal overturned the ruling, establishing that the employer was fully aware of the employee’s position from the outset, having had commercial dealings with the company he managed months before the hiring. The absence of a probationary period and the inclusion of a post-contractual non-competition agreement further confirmed—according to the judges—the employer’s awareness of the worker’s external activity.
The Court specified that merely holding a position in another company, when known and accepted by the employer, does not constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty nor justify dismissal for just cause without evidence of actual competitive activity or concrete harm to the company’s interests.
The dismissal was therefore declared unlawful, and the employer was ordered to reinstate the worker and pay the wages accrued.
11 November 2025
Industrial relations
Anti-union conduct: an “unnegotiable proposal” at the bargaining table is unlawful
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
During proceedings under Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute, a trade union reported the conduct of a company that, during a meeting to renew the industrial relations protocol, declared its proposal to reduce the agreement’s duration “non-negotiable” and subsequently refused any further discussion.
The Court of Appeal deemed this behaviour anti-union, ordering negotiations to resume and the ruling to be published. The company appealed, arguing that there is no statutory obligation to negotiate with trade unions.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, clarifying that although no legal duty to negotiate exists, such an obligation may arise from contractual provisions—in this case, Article 8 of the company agreement, which required the parties to meet to consider the possibility of renewal. The company’s unilateral refusal to negotiate or provide clarification therefore violated principles of fairness and good faith, amounting to conduct capable of undermining trade union freedom protected by Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute.
12 November 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Unlawful conduct outside the workplace and just cause: the Court of Cassation upholds the dismissal
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A worker was dismissed for just cause after being arrested for possession of narcotics and a sum of money believed to be the proceeds of illegal activity. The Tribunal of Modena upheld the dismissal, and the Bologna Court of Appeal confirmed this decision, noting the seriousness of the off-duty conduct, its resonance in the local community, and the worker’s prior disciplinary record.
The Supreme Court rejected the employee’s appeal, reiterating that even conduct outside the workplace may be disciplinarily relevant when it harms the employer’s image or irreparably compromises the relationship of trust. Off-duty misconduct, when serious and prolonged, justifies dismissal.
It is not necessary to prove a direct impact on job duties: it is sufficient that the behaviour is incompatible with the continuation of the fiduciary relationship, as in the present case, where the Court deemed just cause for dismissal to be established.
