31 October 2025
Fixed-Term employment
Exemption from contributions for mothers: extended to Fixed-Term contracts and domestic work
Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court declared the illegitimacy of Article 1, paragraphs 180 and 181, of the 2024 Budget Law, insofar as it limited the exemption from paying the portion of social security contributions for invalidity, old age, and survivors to mothers with permanent contracts only.
The issue was raised by the Court of Milan in a case brought by some mothers with fixed-term contracts and by protection associations, who complained about the discrimination arising from their exclusion from the benefit due to the type of contract or the sector of employment.
The Court upheld the objections, stating that the exemption measure, aimed at promoting maternity and female participation in the labor market, cannot be reserved only for workers with permanent contracts, as this creates an unreasonable disparity of treatment in violation of Articles 3 and 31 of the Constitution. The extension must also apply to workers with fixed-term contracts and domestic workers, provided that subjective conditions are equal.
This decision is particularly relevant for employers, who will now need to coordinate with INPS for the uniform application of the benefit once the related administrative rules are updated.
16 October 2025
Illness and Injury
Workplace Injury: employer is also liable for failure to provide safety training
Court of Cassation, Employment Section
A worker sustained severe injuries while performing an unusual task assigned by the employer without prior training on how to carry out the task and the associated risks. After the first-instance claim was rejected, the Court of Appeal recognized the employer’s liability for violating safety obligations, ordering the company to compensate for both the biological and moral damage.
The Supreme Court upheld this decision, reiterating that the duty to protect the physical integrity of the worker also applies in cases where the activity is only occasionally required. The employer’s liability cannot be excluded by invoking the worker’s negligence when such negligence is a consequence of inadequate training or lack of supervision. Therefore, the employer is liable for injuries even when they result from the employee’s imprudent behavior, if such behavior is causally linked to the violation of safety rules or failure to inform about specific risks.
October 29, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal via WhatsApp: valid if written, but void without disciplinary notice
Naples Court
A worker, dismissed via a WhatsApp message containing the phrase “intends to end the employment relationship,” challenged the decision, arguing that the dismissal was null and void due to lack of form and absence of a disciplinary notice.
The Court of Naples North clarified that a dismissal communicated through a messaging app is, in principle, suitable to fulfill the written form required by law, as it constitutes a digital document that clearly and unambiguously expresses the employer’s intent to terminate the relationship.
Nevertheless, the Judge deemed the dismissal invalid because it was issued without a prior notice of charges and was entirely vague. This omission constitutes a violation of mandatory law and results in the nullity of the disciplinary dismissal, with the application of reinstatement protection provided by the Workers’ Statute.
The ruling confirms the view that the formal validity of the communication does not exempt the employer from observing the procedural guarantees required for disciplinary dismissal, reiterating that the notice of charges is an essential condition for the legitimacy of the termination.
1 December, 2025
Mobbing
Stressful work nnvironment: employer is liable even in the absence of actual mobbing
Court of Cassation, Employment Section
A worker filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the mobbing she suffered at the company, reporting a series of bullying behaviors directed at her during the period from 2012 to 2014. After an initial acceptance, the Court of Appeal rejected the claim, considering that the employer’s actions, although authoritative and disrespectful, were justified by organizational needs and did not appear to be driven by a persecutory intent.
However, the Court of Cassation accepted the worker’s appeal, overturning the appellate decision. The Supreme Court clarified that, even in the absence of a typical persecutory design characteristic of mobbing, the employer can be held liable under Article 2087 of the Civil Code if they tolerate or create a work environment that is stressful or harmful to the employee’s physical or mental health.
It is sufficient for the non-compliance, even if negligent, to be causally linked to the harm suffered. This principle also applies in the case of individual episodes of tension (known as “straining”), which, if they cause discomfort and impair dignity or health, still give rise to the right to compensation.
In this specific case, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the Court of Appeal of Ancona, asking it to reconsider the matter in light of these criteria, with particular attention to the worker’s delicate state of pregnancy at the time of the events.
24 November, 2025
Employee surveillance
Surveillance via investigative agency: legitimate if aimed at uncovering fraudulent conduct by the employee
Court of Cassation, Employment Section
An employee of a consortium was dismissed for just cause after, on several occasions during his shift, he left the workplace to stay elsewhere, despite reporting in his daily log that he was at different locations. In response to repeated customer complaints, the company hired an investigative agency to verify the employee’s conduct. The Court of Appeal of Bari deemed the investigative surveillance legitimate and the dismissal proportional, considering similar prior disciplinary actions. The employee challenged the decision, arguing that the investigation constituted an unlawful control of his work activities in violation of the Workers’ Statute, and that the dismissal was retaliatory. The Court of Cassation upheld the lower court decisions, reiterating that the employer can employ investigative agencies to uncover illegal behavior by the employee, even if the verification takes place during working hours, provided that it is aimed at uncovering fraudulent or criminal conduct and not the methods of fulfilling the job duties. The surveillance is legitimate if carried out in public spaces and is aimed at protecting the company’s assets and image. The ruling consolidates a well-established legal trend: private investigative activities, when aimed at preventing or addressing fraudulent behavior by the employee, do not fall under the restrictions imposed by the Workers’ Statute on remote monitoring.
November 11, 2025
Job duties and demotion
Higher classification: temporary absence or “seconded” employees to branches also count
Court of Cassation, Employment Section
A worker sought recognition of the right to be classified as a Fourth-Level Executive, claiming to have performed managerial duties for several years in a bank branch with a sufficient number of employees to meet the contractual requirements. After an initial unfavorable decision, the Court of Appeal accepted the claim, recognizing that the numerical requirement—necessary for the higher classification—should be calculated by including temporarily absent employees due to illness, maternity, or vacation, as well as those formally assigned to other locations but actually working at the branch. The company appealed the decision to the Court of Cassation, arguing, among other things, that new documents (attendance sheets) were improperly introduced in the appeal and that the collective bargaining agreement had been incorrectly interpreted. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, confirming that, in labor cases, the appellate court can acquire evidence ex officio that is essential for determining the truth, even if not produced at the first instance. Additionally, it clarified that, for the recognition of a higher classification, the term “employees” at the branch should be understood broadly, including all workers who, even temporarily, perform work at the unit managed by the employee. The principle established thus extends the protection of workers claiming a higher classification, emphasizing the actual duties performed and the real organizational context, regardless of the formal assignment to the workforce.
1 December, 2025
Individual dismissal
Dismissal and expiration: the employee loses the right if they do not distinguish between a claim for damages and one for contesting the dismissal
Court of Cassation, Employment Section
A worker challenged the dismissal received in 2005, claiming that it was the final act of a broader pattern of mobbing carried out by the employer. After sending a pre-litigation challenge, the legal claim was filed only in 2017.
The Court of Appeal, affirming the first-instance decision, declared that the worker had forfeited the action, noting that the claim for damages was closely connected to the dismissal and did not refer to other separate unlawful acts.
The Court of Cassation upheld this reasoning, reminding that a claim for damages can survive the forfeiture of the challenge to the dismissal only when it aims to protect different interests (such as health or professional dignity) and is based on further and separate acts by the employer.
In the case examined, the worker had not clearly distinguished between the request for annulment of the dismissal and the claim for damages for mobbing. In the absence of such a distinction, the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, reiterating that the protection under common law remains “residual” and that the burden of pleading and describing in detail the facts supporting the claim rests entirely with the worker.
