2 December 2025
Public procurement
Public procurement: the contracting authority may accept a different collective bargaining agreement if the protections are overall equivalent
Council of State

A company challenged the award of a contract for the management of sewage sludge, claiming that the successful bidder had applied a national collective bargaining agreement (CCNL) different from the one indicated in the tender documentation. The tender required application of the Logistics, Freight Transport and Shipping CCNL, whereas the awarded company declared that it applied the Environmental Hygiene CCNL, which was nonetheless considered “equivalent” in terms of economic and regulatory protections.

The Council of State confirmed the first-instance decision rejecting the appeal, clarifying that the contracting authority must verify, prior to awarding the contract, the actual equivalence between the two collective agreements. However, such verification must be carried out in an overall manner and not be limited to a mere comparison of individual pay or regulatory items.

According to the Court, equivalence must be assessed in light of the consistency between the applied CCNL and the subject matter of the contract, ensuring that the treatment guaranteed to workers is not overall less favorable than that provided for under the agreement specified in the tender. In the case at hand, the contracting authority had conducted an in-depth investigation and obtained the opinion of a labor consultant, which showed that the Environmental Hygiene CCNL guaranteed employees a level of protection overall equal to, if not higher than, that of the Logistics CCNL.

The ruling thus reiterates the principle that, in public tenders, the technical discretion of the Public Administration in assessing adequacy and equivalence may be reviewed only in cases of manifest unreasonableness or misrepresentation of the facts, and that the court may not substitute its own assessment for that of the administration on the merits.

2 October 2025
Employment contract – Ancillary agreements
The employer shares liability with the employee when the damage arises from organizational shortcomings
Supreme Court, Labor Section

A cashier at a bank branch was held responsible for a cash shortfall that occurred during her shift, after a colleague—who later became untraceable—had stolen the money. The Court of Appeal attributed full liability to the employee, considering the omissions in security procedures to be serious.

The Supreme Court, however, upheld the appeal, stating that the judge must ascertain whether actions or omissions by the employer contributed to the occurrence of the damage. Where the risk arises within the organizational structure, the employer cannot claim full compensation if it has itself contributed, through shortcomings in supervision or control, to making the damage possible.

In the specific case, the bank was aware of the prior disciplinary record of the colleague responsible for the theft but had neither informed the cashier nor adopted organizational measures suitable to limit his access to cash. According to the Supreme Court, such omissions may constitute contributory negligence under the general rules governing contractual liability.

The principle set out has broad scope: the employee’s fault does not exclude that of the company when the damage arises in an environment that the employer itself has helped to make risky. Employer liability is therefore also rooted in the ability—or inability—to prevent risks stemming from work organization.

7 July 2025
Remuneration and benefits
Non-absorbable “superminimum”: consistency in company practice creates a binding custom
Milan Court of Appeal

An employee challenged her employer’s decision to absorb, in 2018, the item of “individual superminimum” following pay increases provided for by the renewal of the collective agreement. The Milan Labor Court upheld the claim, ordering the company to pay the amounts due for the disputed period.

The Milan Court of Appeal fully confirmed the first-instance decision, holding that the company’s long-standing conduct—consisting in never absorbing superminimums during previous contract renewals—had consolidated a genuine “company custom.” Such a custom, qualified as a collective source, binds the employer vis-à-vis the entire workforce and prevents the absorption of the superminimum, unless there is an express provision of equal collective level to the contrary.

The Court specified that a unilateral decision by the employer to absorb the superminimum, in the absence of a formal termination of the custom or a contrary contractual clause, constitutes a breach of contract and cannot affect employees’ acquired rights. Consequently, where there is a consistent and generalized practice of non-absorption lasting for years, the employer may not unilaterally change such treatment, even by invoking the general principle of absorbability of the superminimum, if its conduct has generated an opposite company custom.

18 July 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Disciplinary dismissal disproportionate: the Supreme Court reiterates the limit of the seriousness of the conduct
Supreme Court, Labor Section

An employee was dismissed for just cause following conduct deemed detrimental to the relationship of trust with the employer. The company accused the employee of improper use of company tools and of making statements considered offensive toward colleagues. The court of first instance upheld the dismissal, while the Court of Appeal, taking into account the context and the absence of prior disciplinary issues, found the sanction disproportionate and converted it into a conservative measure.

The Supreme Court confirmed the appellate decision, stating that disciplinary dismissal is lawful only where the conduct is objectively capable of irreversibly undermining the relationship of trust. The proportionality assessment must be carried out concretely, considering not only the nature of the conduct, but also the intensity of the subjective element, the context in which it occurred, and the employee’s prior conduct. Not every breach of the duty of diligence or fairness therefore justifies dismissal: the sanction must remain consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of the disciplinary system and with the principles of graduality and proportionality of sanctions.

30 June 2025
Dismissal due to supervening unfitness
Dismissal lawful where precautionary suspension makes performance of work impossible
Court of Appeal of Campobasso

An employee working as a healthcare assistant in a nursing home was subjected to a temporary disqualification order issued by the criminal court in relation to alleged abuse of residents. Following this measure, the employer terminated the employment relationship, formally citing subjective justified reason, but in substance grounding the decision on the impossibility of using the employee in her duties. The Larino court held the dismissal unlawful, considering the absence not attributable to the employee and awarding compensatory damages.

The Campobasso Court of Appeal overturned that decision, instead recognizing the lawfulness of the dismissal and classifying it as justified objective reason. The Court emphasized that the disqualification measure—potentially long-lasting and applied simultaneously to multiple operators—had created a situation of supervening impossibility of performance for the employer, incompatible with continuation of the employment relationship. Referring to established case law, the judges reiterated that, in cases where the employee is prevented from working due to personal precautionary measures, the employer may terminate for justified objective reason where, assessed ex ante in light of business needs and company size, there is no longer a significant interest in the performance. In such cases, the obligation of redeployment (repechage) does not apply.

11 September 2025
Resignations
Resignations under pressure: valid only if resulting from free and informed will
Supreme Court, Criminal Section

An employee submitted her resignation after repeated solicitations by the company, which presented dismissal as the only alternative. A few days later, she attempted to revoke the resignation, claiming that the decision had been taken under strong psychological pressure and did not reflect a truly free will.

The Court of Appeal excluded the validity of the revocation, holding that the declaration of intent had already been perfected. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the employee’s appeal, reiterating that the genuineness of resignations must be assessed concretely: they are valid only if the employee submits them in a fully informed manner and free from conditioning, fear, or undue pressure by the employer.

The Supreme Court clarified that where consent is vitiated by threat or a state of psychological subjugation, the resignation must be considered null and void. In such cases, the employment relationship is deemed never to have ceased, with the consequent right to reinstatement and to payment of accrued wages.

The decision reaffirms a principle of particular importance: even where resignations are formally correct (for example, submitted through telematic procedures), the judge must always ascertain the true freedom of the employee’s will, protecting them against employer conduct that influences their choice.

17 July 2025
Health and safety at work
Training and safety: the employer is liable even where the accident results from the worker’s imprudent initiative
Supreme Court, Criminal Section IV

A newly hired worker suffered the amputation of his left hand while using a cutting machine. The company was accused of failing to provide adequate training and information on the risks associated with use of the machinery. The trial court acquitted the employer, finding that the accident was due to an abnormal conduct by the worker, who had operated the machine without authorization and in the absence of the experienced colleague.

The Supreme Court overturned that decision, clarifying that employer liability cannot be excluded where the event occurs within the risk area that the employer is required to manage. Employers must ensure safe working conditions also in anticipation of imprudent conduct by workers, unless such conduct is entirely extraneous to the assigned duties or radically unforeseeable.

In the present case, the activity carried out by the worker, although imprudent, nonetheless fell within the operational context for which he had been hired. Consequently, the lack of training and information constituted a decisive violation for the purposes of the accident. The Court thus reiterated that the employer’s duty of safety extends also to situations in which the worker’s imprudent initiative is not wholly unrelated to the tasks assigned.