12 February 2026
Temporary Agency Work
Agency Work Beyond 24 Months: Direct Employment Relationship with the End-User Arises
Milan Tribunal
A worker who had been employed for years at the same warehouse under agency work contracts brought proceedings to obtain recognition of a direct employment relationship with the end-user company, together with correct job classification and compensation. The worker had performed work continuously at the same company for more than four years — first under fixed-term contracts and then under an open-ended contract with the agency — while continuing to carry out assignments at the same end-user. The company raised preliminary objections, including time-bar and lack of legal interest. The Tribunal dismissed these objections, holding that an open-ended contract with the agency does not preclude the worker’s interest in obtaining a direct employment relationship with the end-user. On the merits, the Judge reaffirmed that exceeding the 24-month limit for assignments at the same end-user renders the fixed-term contracts null and void and gives rise to an open-ended employment relationship directly with the end-user company. Even in open-ended agency work, the actual manner and duration of assignments are relevant: where the placement loses its temporary character, the instrument is being used improperly. Having established that the time limit had been exceeded, the Tribunal declared the existence of a direct employment relationship with the company from the twenty-fourth month onwards and ordered the employer to pay compensation equal to 6 monthly salaries of the last pay used for severance pay (TFR) purposes.
10 February 2026
Temporary Agency Work
Unlimited Agency Work: Repeated Assignments Beyond Temporariness Transform the Relationship with the End-User
Brescia Tribunal
A worker brought proceedings claiming to have worked for years at the same company under multiple agency work contracts, always performing the same duties. Upon termination of the assignment, he was placed on standby by the agency, remaining without employment. The worker accordingly sought a declaration that the agency arrangement was unlawful and the establishment of an open-ended employment relationship directly with the end-user company. The Tribunal upheld the claim, finding that the repeated assignments at the same end-user — extending over more than three years — were incompatible with the requirement of temporariness. In particular, the Judge highlighted that agency work cannot be used to meet stable and permanent business needs. According to the decision, the principle of temporariness is a structural element of the instrument and applies even in the case of open-ended agency work. In the absence of objective reasons justifying the repeated use of the same worker, the succession of assignments constitutes an abusive use of the instrument, potentially amounting to fraud. It follows that, once the limit of a reasonably temporary duration of services at the end-user has been exceeded, the worker may obtain the establishment of a direct employment relationship with the end-user, dating back to the inception of the first irregular contract.
11 March 2026
Temporary Agency Work
Open-Ended Agency Work: No 24-Month Limit and Full Legitimacy of Staff Leasing
Brescia Tribunal
A worker, initially hired under fixed-term agency contracts and subsequently taken on permanently by the agency, was sent on a continuous assignment to the same end-user company. Upon termination of the assignment, he brought proceedings claiming pay differentials and the application of the duration limits applicable to fixed-term arrangements. The Tribunal dismissed the claims, first clarifying the distinction between fixed-term agency work and open-ended agency work (so-called staff leasing). Where a worker is hired on a permanent basis by the agency, the employment relationship is not subject to the maximum duration limits applicable to fixed-term contracts, since the worker is not in a precarious position, holding an open-ended contract. The Judge further noted that, during periods between one assignment and the next, the worker is entitled to a standby allowance — a factor that contributes to ruling out protections analogous to those provided for fixed-term employment. As regards pay, the principle of equal treatment with the end-user’s own employees was reaffirmed and was considered satisfied in the specific case, resulting in the dismissal of the pay claims brought by the worker.
26 February 2026
Pay and Benefits
Meal Vouchers and Proof of Performance: The Significance of Non-Contestation in Pay Proceedings
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker brought proceedings seeking an order against the company to pay amounts connected with work performed under a contract that had already been declared unlawful in prior litigation. At first instance, the claim was only partially upheld, while the Court of Appeal recognised the full pay differentials claimed, giving weight to the documentation produced and the absence of specific contestation of the allegations. The company appealed to the Court of Cassation, challenging, among other things, the recognition of entitlement to meal vouchers and the insufficiency of evidence regarding the manner in which work was performed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that the failure to specifically contest facts relied upon by the other party may relieve that party of the burden of proof, with the lower court having discretion to assess the actual significance of such procedural conduct. In this context, pay documentation originating from parties other than the employer may also contribute to proving the work performed and the associated economic entitlements. The decision further highlights that entitlement to meal vouchers may be justified by the actual organisation of working hours and the performance of full-time work with an intermediate break, in accordance with the applicable company arrangements.
2 March 2026
Disability
Discriminatory Dismissal and Disability: The Worker’s Silence Does Not Reduce Compensation
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker challenged her dismissal, communicated on grounds of exceeding the sick leave entitlement period, arguing that it was discriminatory on account of her disability. The lower courts confirmed the nullity of the dismissal; however, the Court of Appeal reduced the compensation award to the minimum level, placing weight on the fact that the worker had not disclosed her health condition to the employer. The Supreme Court, called upon to rule on the matter, reaffirmed that applying the standard sick leave entitlement rules to a disabled worker may constitute indirect discrimination where possible organisational adjustments have not previously been assessed. In this context, the burden falls on the employer to act, in good faith and with due diligence, to ascertain whether the absences are connected to the disability and to engage in appropriate dialogue with the worker. On the question of financial consequences, the Court of Cassation clarified that, once the employer’s liability has been established, the worker’s failure to disclose their personal condition cannot reduce the quantum of damages. The minimum compensation threshold is indeed a non-derogable floor, but it does not represent the full extent of the compensation due where the employer’s breach is attributable, in which case a more substantial award must be recognised.
13 February 2026
Dismissal for Just Cause
Dismissal for Workplace Violence: Contradictory Reasoning and the Limits of Review by the Court of Cassation
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker, a member of a cooperative employed in healthcare assistance activities, was dismissed for just cause following an episode of violence against a patient. The worker challenged the disciplinary measure and the simultaneous exclusion from the cooperative. The Tribunal dismissed the claims, while the Court of Appeal found the dismissal disproportionate and ordered the company to pay a compensation award. The Supreme Court quashed the second-instance decision, identifying an irremediably contradictory line of reasoning. In particular, the lower court judges had characterised the conduct as of the utmost seriousness, incompatible with the continuation of the employment relationship, yet had then mitigated its significance by giving weight to the working environment and the stress associated with caring for vulnerable individuals. According to the Court of Cassation, review on grounds of reasoning is today confined to anomalies affecting the very existence of the reasoning itself, such as an irreconcilable conflict between incompatible statements. In the case at hand, the logical incoherence between the characterisation of the conduct and the subsequent mitigating assessment made it necessary to refer the matter back to the lower court for a fresh and consistent evaluation of the proportionality of the dismissal.
17 March 2026
Dismissal for Just Cause
Insults Directed at the Company During Sick Leave: Dismissal Lawful Even Beyond the Scope of the Collective Agreement
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from a dismissal for just cause served on a worker who, during a period of absence due to injury, had attended the company’s premises to collect personal belongings. On that occasion, not finding one of his possessions, he directed seriously offensive remarks at the company and its managers, making police intervention necessary. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had found the dismissal lawful, giving weight to the gravity of the conduct and the resulting damage to the bond of trust. The worker appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the conduct in question did not fall within the instances of just cause set out in the applicable collective agreement. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, reaffirming a well-established principle: just cause is a general clause that must be given concrete content by the court in light of the values of the legal system and the specific circumstances of the case. The provisions of collective agreements serve as a point of reference but are not binding. It follows that a court may find just cause to exist even in respect of conduct not expressly covered by the collective agreement, provided it is capable of irreparably undermining the relationship of trust between the parties.
