11 September 2025
Resignations
Resignations revocable even during the probationary period: the employment relationship resumes without interruption
Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), Labour Section

The case examined by the Italian Supreme Court arose from the resignation submitted by an employee the day after hiring and subsequently revoked within the statutory seven-day period. The employer denied the effectiveness of the revocation, arguing that during the probationary period a regime of free termination applies, which would be incompatible with the continuation of the employment relationship.

The lower courts instead recognized the validity of the revocation and the continuity of the employment relationship, a decision later confirmed by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, the rules governing telematic resignations and their revocation also apply during the probationary period, as the legislation does not provide for any exceptions for this phase of the employment relationship.

The Court clarified that a timely revocation removes the terminating effects of the resignation and results in the full restoration of the employment relationship as it previously stood, namely during the probationary period. This solution does not affect the parties’ freedom to withdraw at a later stage once the probation has been carried out, but it ensures protection of the genuineness of the employee’s intent.

Of particular importance is the principle that guidance contained in administrative practice documents cannot introduce exceptions not provided for by law. The ruling therefore strengthens the approach aimed at balancing the experimental function of the probationary period with the need to protect employees from hasty or not fully informed resignations.

26 November 2025
Individual dismissal
Challenging a dismissal: a simple PEC is not sufficient if there is no proof of receipt
Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), Labour Section

An employee challenged his dismissal by sending a certified email (PEC) to the company, but the employer objected to the timeliness of the challenge, claiming that it had never received the message. The Court of Appeal upheld the employee’s claim, considering proof of sending the certified email sufficient.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision, clarifying that the burden of proving receipt of the challenge lies with the employee. The mere PEC acceptance receipt is not sufficient; it is also necessary to prove actual delivery to the recipient, since only from that moment is the communication perfected for the purposes of complying with the statutory limitation period.

The principle confirms that the challenge to a dismissal must reach the employer’s sphere of knowledge within the 60 days prescribed by law. In the absence of certain proof of receipt, the challenge is ineffective and the employee forfeits the right to contest the dismissal.

7 November 2025
Agile work – “Smart working”
Workplace accidents in smart working: when INAIL protection applies even outside the office
INAIL

The spread of agile work has raised significant questions regarding protection against workplace accidents. The case addressed in the circular concerns injurious events occurring during the performance of work remotely, in locations chosen by the employee and not previously identified by the employer.

The document clarifies that agile work does not alter the requirements for insurance coverage, which remains linked to the occupational risk connected to the activity performed rather than to the physical location of the work. Accordingly, not only accidents occurring during the direct execution of job duties are compensable, but also those related to preparatory or ancillary activities, provided they are functional to the work.

Particular importance is given to the individual agreement, which defines the spatial and temporal scope of the work performance and allows assessment of whether the event is attributable to the employment relationship. In the absence of specific indications, INAIL carries out targeted investigations to verify the functional connection between the activity performed and the insured risk.

Protection also applies to commuting accidents, provided that the travel is dictated by work-related needs or work–life balance requirements and meets criteria of reasonableness, excluding cases of elective risk resulting from arbitrary choices by the employee.

24 November 2025
Self-employment and subordinate employment
Subordinate employment relationship: the Supreme Court reaffirms the value of indicators of subordination
Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), Labour Section

An employee brought an action before the Labour Court seeking a declaration of the existence of a subordinate employment relationship with the professional at whose office she had worked for over twenty years, requesting recognition of pay differences and severance pay.

The Tribunal upheld the claim, recognizing the subordinate nature of the relationship; the Court of Appeal confirmed this classification but recalculated the amounts due. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ decisions, reiterating that the classification of a relationship as subordinate or self-employed depends on a factual assessment based on indicators such as continuity of service, subjection to the employer’s managerial and supervisory powers, compliance with fixed working hours, and use of the employer’s tools. These elements, present in the case at hand, confirmed the existence of a relationship of subordination.

The Court further clarified that, in the absence of an applicable collective bargaining agreement, the judge may use, solely as a benchmark, the wage tables of the most closely related sectoral collective agreement, in order to ensure proportionality and adequacy of remuneration pursuant to Article 36 of the Italian Constitution.

24 November 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Off-duty conduct: dismissal is lawful if it undermines the fiduciary relationship
Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), Labour Section

An employee was dismissed for just cause after engaging, outside working hours and the workplace, in conduct deemed serious and incompatible with the duties associated with her position within the company. The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing that the conduct, being unrelated to work activity, could not affect the employment relationship.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal, emphasizing the employee’s particular fiduciary role and the public relevance of the conduct. The Supreme Court upheld this approach, reiterating that dismissal for just cause may also be based on conduct occurring outside the workplace when such conduct is capable of irreparably undermining the fiduciary relationship with the employer.

According to the Supreme Court, the assessment must take into account the nature of the role and the degree of reliability required: the employer may legitimately consider trust to be irreparably compromised whenever off-duty conduct is incompatible with the duties of fairness, loyalty, and reliability that must characterize the employment relationship.

19 November 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal for unjustified absences: the employer must assess the proportionality of the sanction
Rome Labour Court

An employee, absent for several days without justification, was dismissed for just cause. The employer considered the conduct capable of irreparably undermining the fiduciary relationship, arguing that unjustified absence constituted a serious breach of contractual obligations.

The employee challenged the dismissal, claiming that the absence was caused by a mishap related to illness and that the company should have assessed the proportionality of the sanction and the possible existence of mitigating circumstances before dismissing her.

The Rome Labour Court upheld the claim, finding the dismissal disproportionate to the contested conduct. The Court recalled that, even in cases of unjustified absence, the employer must carry out an overall assessment of the facts, considering the objective and subjective seriousness of the breach, the duration of the absence, and any recurrence. Only intentional or repeated conduct may justify immediate termination of the employment relationship.

The decision reaffirms the principle of proportionality as an essential parameter for the lawfulness of disciplinary dismissal: dismissal must always be an extrema ratio, applicable only when any other remedy proves inadequate to restore the fiduciary relationship.

26 October 2025
Duties and demotion
Dismissal of an executive: actual reorganization is sufficient and contractual “justification” applies
Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), Labour Section

An executive employee challenged her dismissal, which had been ordered due to the elimination of her position following a reorganization plan. At first instance, the dismissal was deemed unlawful and the executive was awarded the additional indemnity provided for by the collective agreement; the Court of Appeal, however, upheld the company’s appeal, finding the organizational reasons underlying the dismissal to be proven.

The Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance decision, reiterating that for “conventional” executives the ordinary rules limiting the employer’s power to dismiss do not apply. Consequently, for the purposes of any additional indemnity, the relevant criterion is the contractual concept of “justification,” linked to the fiduciary relationship and the company’s strategic choices, and not comparable to the criteria applicable to other employees.

From this perspective, it is sufficient for the employer to demonstrate the actual existence of the reorganization and its impact on the executive position, without the need to prove a company-wide crisis. Judicial review must be limited to verifying the absence of pretext in the organizational choice, without assessing its merits.

It is also irrelevant that the activities previously performed by the executive were redistributed to other staff or partially assigned to a new role with a different classification: what matters is that the company no longer has a position corresponding to the original one.