31 March 2026
Unemployment Benefits
NASpI: The 68-Day Time Limit Runs from Termination — Subsequent Court Rulings Are Irrelevant
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from the dismissal of a worker who challenged the termination served on her. Only after the conclusion of the proceedings did the worker submit a claim for NASpI unemployment benefit, which INPS rejected as out of time.
According to the Supreme Court, the sixty-eight-day time limit for submitting the claim always runs from the termination of the employment relationship and cannot be pushed forward as a result of a subsequent judicial ruling.
The time bar serves public interest purposes and cannot depend on the worker’s individual circumstances. Even practical obstacles are not capable of suspending or deferring the deadline.
The ruling calls for particular care in the management of terminations, as timely submission of the claim remains an essential condition for access to the benefit.
24 March 2026
Unemployment Benefits
NASpI and Consensual Termination: No Benefit Outside the Cases Expressly Provided by Law
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from a worker’s claim seeking to establish her right to retain the NASpI benefit received following the termination of her employment by consensual agreement reached before a trade union, with the recognition of an exit incentive. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had excluded INPS’s right to recover the amounts paid, considering the situation comparable to those permitting access to the benefit. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this approach, affirming a principle of strict interpretation of the conditions for access to NASpI.
In particular, the Court clarified that, in the case of consensual termination, unemployment benefit is due exclusively in the cases expressly provided by law — namely where the agreement is reached in the context of a procedure initiated by the employer for dismissal on objective justified grounds. It is therefore not permissible to extend this framework to other situations by analogy, even where the termination is attributable to the company’s organisational needs or is accompanied by exit incentives. In the absence of a dismissal — even one that has merely been announced — the requirement of involuntary unemployment is not met.
The ruling thus reaffirms that the circumstances giving access to NASpI constitute a closed system, not susceptible to interpretive expansion.
3 October 2025
Dismissal for Economic Reasons
Redundancies in Small Businesses: Selection Criteria and Uncapped Compensation After the Constitutional Court’s Ruling
La Spezia Tribunal
A worker challenged the dismissal communicated by the company on grounds of workforce reduction following the closure of a retail outlet. The worker contested the genuine existence of the economic reasons and, above all, the employer’s selection, which she considered arbitrary compared to other employees performing similar duties.
The judge excluded any retaliatory nature of the dismissal, but found that, even where a genuine contraction of business existed, the employer had breached the principles of fairness and good faith in the selection of the worker to be dismissed. In particular, the company had retained employees with less seniority and interchangeable duties, without providing adequate justification or demonstrating the impossibility of redeploying the worker to other outlets. Such conduct was found to be arbitrary, requiring even small businesses to adopt objective and verifiable criteria in managing redundancies.
As regards the remedy, the Tribunal applied the principles set out by the Constitutional Court (ruling no. 118/2025), which abolished the maximum cap on compensation for businesses below the threshold. This results in an individualised award, calibrated not only on length of service but also on the actual size of the business and the circumstances of the parties. In the specific case, the judge recognised compensation exceeding the previous maximum, taking into account the seriousness of the breach and the impact of the dismissal on the worker — marking a strengthening of protection even in the context of small businesses.
10 March 2026
Industrial Relations
Change of Collective Agreement Without Union Consent: Anti-Union Conduct Even Where the New Contract Is More Favourable
Trani Tribunal
The dispute arose from the employer’s unilateral decision to terminate the collective agreement applied to its workers and replace it with a different sectoral agreement. The trade union organisations challenged the decision and obtained, at the summary stage, an order declaring it unlawful. The company filed an objection, arguing, among other things, that the new agreement was more consistent with its actual business activities and that the conditions applied were more favourable to workers.
The Tribunal dismissed the objection and confirmed the anti-union nature of the conduct. The judge clarified that unilateral withdrawal from the “leading” collective agreement, in the absence of prior engagement with the most comparatively representative trade union organisations, constitutes a breach of trade union prerogatives.
The ruling emphasises two aspects in particular. First, the irrelevance of the potentially more favourable nature of the new agreement, which is not capable of remedying the breach of the method of industrial relations. Second, the centrality of comparative representativeness as a criterion conferring on collective bargaining a privileged regulatory function. The judge also noted that the characterisation of a company’s business activity must be assessed on the actual facts and cannot be used instrumentally to justify a change of collective agreement. It follows that replacing the applicable CCNL, where it affects established arrangements without agreement, may be scrutinised as anti-union conduct.
23 March 2026
Industrial Relations
Company Agreement Without RSU and Rejected by Referendum: Opt-Out Imposed on Workers Constitutes Anti-Union Conduct
Bolzano Tribunal
Several trade union organisations challenged a company agreement signed by the employer with only some of the unions, without the signature of the RSU (unitary trade union representation) and subsequently rejected in a workers’ referendum. Despite this, the company proceeded to apply the agreement across the board, providing for a system of individual opt-out by means of a dedicated form.
The judge found that, even in the absence of erga omnes effect of the agreement, the manner of implementation adopted by the employer constituted anti-union conduct. In particular, the communication to workers omitted essential information — such as the RSU’s failure to sign and the negative outcome of the referendum — leading workers to believe that a fully effective collective agreement was in force.
The opt-out mechanism, moreover, transferred to individual workers the burden of taking action to avoid the application of the agreement, with the result that inaction was treated as acceptance. In this way, the outcome of the trade union negotiations and the referendum was effectively neutralised.
According to the Tribunal, an overall assessment of the employer’s conduct reveals a circumvention of the role of trade union organisations and collective representation bodies, with consequent damage to trade union activity.
7 April 2026
Maternity and Paternity
Parental and Paternity Leave: New Application Procedures for Workers Residing Abroad
INPS
INPS has addressed the procedures for submitting applications for parental leave and compulsory paternity leave in cases where workers reside abroad. The clarification arises in an operational context characterised by technical difficulties linked to the use of online procedures.
In particular, it is established that applications are to be assigned to specific territorial offices, identified on the basis of the worker’s country of residence, in accordance with criteria already used in the healthcare sector. This allows for more orderly and specialised handling of cases.
Pending the update of the IT systems, workers may nonetheless access the leave entitlements by submitting applications in paper form via certified email to the competent offices. Once the system upgrade is complete, online submission will also be required for periods already taken, provided the delay is not attributable to the workers.
The communication thus introduces a transitional framework ensuring continuity of access to protections and reducing the risk of prejudice arising from procedural malfunctions.
30 March 2026
Dismissal for Just Cause
Misappropriation of Company Property: Dismissal Lawful Even Without Leaving the Workplace
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from a disciplinary dismissal served by a company on a worker accused of taking a company product without authorisation. The worker argued in his defence that he had taken the item solely to check its price and pass the information to a third party, with no intention of appropriating it.
The dispute reached the Court of Cassation, which was called upon to assess the lawfulness of the dismissal and, in particular, the relevance of the conduct alleged.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed a principle of particular significance: for the purpose of establishing unlawful conduct, it is sufficient that the worker takes possession of the item — it is not necessary for the property to be definitively removed from the employer’s sphere of control. In other words, the conduct is complete at the moment the worker takes possession of the item, regardless of whether he leaves the company premises.
On the question of evidence, the Court also clarified that the burden falls on the worker to demonstrate the alternative purpose of his conduct, where he invokes a justification other than an appropriative intent.
The ruling thus confirms a strict disciplinary approach, reinforcing the protection of company assets and the trust underlying the employment relationship.
