10 September 2025
Remuneration and benefits
Electric company cars: the charging card is not taxable income; amounts charged do not reduce the fringe benefit
Italian Revenue Agency

The case arises from a company policy under which vehicles are assigned for mixed business and private use, and the company intends to extend to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles the same card used for fuel purchases, valid also at public charging stations, with the cost charged to the company and an annual cap for private use. The company asks whether charging paid by the employer generates taxable income for the employee and whether any amounts withheld from the employee for private mileage exceeding the limit can reduce the value of the fringe benefit.

The Revenue Agency clarifies that, for vehicles granted for mixed use, taxation is calculated on a flat-rate basis using ACI values; these values also include “fuel” and therefore, for electric and plug-in vehicles, the cost of electricity. As a result, charging carried out using a company card—within the limits set by the policy—does not constitute taxable income for the employee.

By contrast, amounts paid by the employee to the company for private use of the vehicle (for example, beyond the annual limit set) cannot be deducted from the ACI flat-rate value of the vehicle and therefore do not reduce the taxable fringe benefit. These amounts must be withheld from the employee’s net salary, without affecting the conventional value of the benefit.

10 December 2025
Industrial relations
Early renewal of the Rubber–Plastics National Collective Agreement: more welfare, training and gender equality
Federation of Rubber and Plastics

The Federation of Rubber and Plastics has announced the early renewal of the National Collective Labour Agreement for the 2026–2028 three-year period, covering more than 165,000 workers and 3,600 companies in the sector. The agreement, reached with trade unions almost a month before expiry, confirms the strength of industrial relations and the shared intention to support competitiveness, employment and job quality.

The agreement provides for a total pay increase of EUR 204 over the three-year period, with an increase of EUR 195 on minimum pay (level F), to be paid in four instalments. Contractual welfare is also strengthened: the employer contribution to supplementary pension schemes will rise to up to 2% during the term of the agreement.

From a regulatory standpoint, the renewal enhances the role of the National Observatory, with particular attention to equal opportunities, health and safety, and professional skill needs. Companies must also guarantee 12 hours of individual training per year, while new protections are introduced for pay transparency and for female workers who are victims of gender-based violence.

The contract also introduces measures to promote active ageing and skills transfer, in line with the technological and demographic transition of the sector. This is a balanced renewal that strengthens the bilateral system and confirms the central role of social dialogue as a driver of competitiveness and cohesion.

9 October 2025
Resignations
Resignations due to unjustified absence: 12 calendar days are not sufficient
Court of Bergamo

An employee had been deemed to have resigned by the company due to unjustified absence from 3 to 14 February 2025. The company considered this period—12 calendar days—sufficient to constitute “resignation by conclusive conduct” under the legislative decree simplifying termination procedures.

The Court of Bergamo upheld the employee’s claim, clarifying that the minimum period of absence required for the presumption of resignation cannot be less than fifteen working days, not calendar days. This period—according to the Court—is necessary to make the employee’s intention to terminate the employment relationship unequivocal, given that this scenario does not benefit from the safeguards of disciplinary proceedings.

The Court also noted that the applicable collective agreement (Rubber–Plastics CCNL) does not provide specific rules on resignation due to unjustified absence and that the time limit applicable to disciplinary dismissal cannot be applied by analogy, as it concerns a different legal institution.

Having declared the termination ineffective, the Court ordered the company to pay wages accrued from the date the employee formally placed the employer in default, as well as EUR 438.46 for outstanding pay differences, plus statutory revaluation and interest.

The decision reiterates that, in the absence of a specific contractual provision, an employer may consider the employment relationship terminated only after more than fifteen consecutive working days of unjustified absence.

10 November 2025
Resignations
Implied resignations: when an employee abandons the job without formalities
Court of Milan

After abruptly leaving the workplace and no longer reporting to work, an employee was deemed to have resigned in fact by the employer, which terminated the employment relationship without the formal telematic resignation procedure. The employee brought legal action, challenging the termination and seeking its reclassification as unlawful dismissal. The Court of Appeal had held the termination invalid, stating that even prolonged absence could not be considered resignation in the absence of the legally required form.

The Supreme Court overturned that decision, ruling that resignations may also be considered valid when the employee’s conduct—clear, unequivocal and prolonged over time—demonstrates the intention not to continue the employment relationship, even without use of the telematic platform. The principle expressed by the Court protects certainty in conclusive conduct, excluding that inertia should burden the employer.

However, it is necessary that the intention to definitively abandon employment emerges from unambiguous facts, such as failure to respond to company communications or an explicit refusal to return to work. The ruling aligns with case law distinguishing unjustified absence from implicit resignations, emphasising the substantive aspect of the employee’s intent and the employer’s good faith in qualifying the event as termination by resignation.

28 November 2025
Duties and demotion
Higher-level duties: the right to reclassification arises only if the activity is stable and not temporary
Supreme Court, Labour Section

An employee brought legal action against the company, claiming to have performed, for a prolonged period, duties at a higher level than those provided for by his contractual classification, and seeking recognition of the corresponding grade and accrued pay differences. The Court of Appeal upheld the claim, finding that the duties performed corresponded to a higher level under the applicable collective agreement.

The Supreme Court, however, overturned the decision, reaffirming that the right to higher classification requires the continuous and non-occasional performance of higher-level duties. Temporary assignment, even if repeated, is not sufficient to establish the right; it is necessary that the new duties are stably integrated into the company’s organisation and that the employer shows, even implicitly, an intention to consolidate the employee’s position.

The principle reaffirms the importance of continuity in performing higher-level duties as an essential condition for automatic reclassification, clearly distinguishing it from cases of temporary substitution or contingent business needs.

13 November 2025
Severance pay, notice and other termination indemnities
18-month notice clause: null and void if there is no real consideration for the employee
Court of Tivoli

After resigning, an employee was sued by the employer, which sought payment of the indemnity in lieu of notice provided for in the individual employment contract. That contract required a notice period of 18 months, significantly longer than that set by the collective agreement.

The employee challenged the validity of the clause, arguing that it imposed a disproportionate and unjustified constraint. The Court of Tivoli upheld the employee’s argument, stating that a clause imposing a notice period longer than that established by the CCNL is admissible only if supported by effective and adequate consideration in favour of the employee. In the case at hand, the clause merely referred to generic “career improvements” and “health protection”, without providing any concrete benefit or economic compensation.

The absence of a genuine contractual exchange—according to the Court—results in a derogation to the employee’s detriment compared to collective bargaining rules and therefore renders the clause null and void under Article 2077 of the Italian Civil Code. Consequently, the employer cannot demand payment of the indemnity in lieu of notice based on such a provision. The decision confirms the view that extended notice clauses are lawful only when embedded in a framework of mutual benefit and cannot be used as a unilateral tool to retain employees.

24 June 2025
Remuneration and benefits
Shifts longer than six hours: entitlement to meal vouchers even outside traditional lunch hours
Supreme Court, Labour Section

A shift worker employed by a hospital company brought a claim seeking recognition of the right to access the staff canteen or, alternatively, to receive meal vouchers, complaining that she could not benefit from them despite her shift pattern (7 a.m.–1 p.m., 1 p.m.–8 p.m., 8 p.m.–7 a.m.). Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal upheld the claim. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that in the absence of supplementary bargaining there is no automatic right to canteen service and that such a right applies only to those working during traditional meal hours.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that in the healthcare sector the right to canteen service or alternative arrangements (such as meal vouchers) applies to employees whose daily working time exceeds six hours, regardless of the timing of the shift. The “particular arrangement of working hours” referred to by the collective agreement concerns the existence of a work break, not the timing of the meal.

The Court also specified that the value of the meal vouchers used by the lower courts to quantify damages does not constitute monetisation of the benefit, but rather a parameter for calculating the harm suffered by the employee due to the inability to use the canteen service. With this decision, the Court reaffirms that the right to a break and the right to canteen facilities are closely connected, in order to protect the worker’s physical and psychological well-being.