30 March 2026
Social Security and Contributions
Reinstatement and Contributions: Force Majeure Does Not Automatically Exempt the Employer
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker dismissed on disciplinary grounds and subsequently acquitted in criminal proceedings obtained, on appeal, a declaration of unlawfulness of the dismissal with an order of reinstatement and compensation limited to five monthly salaries. He then brought further proceedings to recover damages arising from the failure to pay contributions during the lengthy period between dismissal and reinstatement, claiming a reduction in the pension benefits he received.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding that the failure to pay contributions was justified by a force majeure event — the revocation of the worker’s authorisation to access the airport area — which was not attributable to the employer.
The Court of Cassation reversed this approach, reaffirming the principle of autonomy of the contribution obligation from the pay obligation. Even where a non-attributable impediment exempts the employer from the obligation to pay wages, the contribution obligation persists, unless the applicable collective agreement expressly treats the situation as a ground for suspension of the employment relationship.
In the case of unlawful dismissal followed by reinstatement, the employment relationship remains legally in force during the intervening period and contributions must be calculated on the notional remuneration, regardless of the compensation awarded. Force majeure alone is therefore not sufficient to exclude the contribution obligation, unless this is expressly provided for by the collective agreement.
8 April 2026
Dismissal for Just Cause
Simulated Illness and Dismissal: Circumstantial Evidence Is Not Enough Where a Medical Certificate Exists
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker challenged the disciplinary dismissal served by the company, which was based on the alleged simulation of illness in order to avoid new duties he found unwelcome. At first instance the claim was upheld, while the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and found the dismissal lawful on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
The Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision, focusing on the correct allocation of the burden of proof and the use of presumptions. In disciplinary dismissal cases, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate the existence of just cause; it is not sufficient to allege mere indicia that would shift the burden to the worker to prove the contrary. However, proof may be provided by means of presumptions, provided these are serious, precise, and consistent.
In the specific case, the Supreme Court found the presumptive reasoning adopted by the lower court inadequate, noting that the existence of a medical certificate attesting to the condition constitutes a particularly significant element, capable of undermining the logical coherence of the indicia relied upon. In the absence of appropriate medico-legal investigation, a medical certificate cannot be disregarded on the basis of purely conjectural assessments.
It follows that, where a medical certificate exists, the simulation of illness must be established by a particularly rigorous body of evidence and cannot rest on circumstantial elements that lack the required characteristics.
10 April 2026
Equal Opportunities and Discrimination
Carers and Working Hours: Reasonable Adjustments Required but No Absolute Right
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker brought proceedings claiming that her employer had refused to assign her permanently to a morning shift, which she needed in order to care for her disabled minor child. The Tribunal dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeal excluded both the discriminatory nature of the conduct and the existence of an unconditional right to a change of working hours. The matter came before the Court of Cassation following a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the EU.
The Supreme Court held that the prohibition of discrimination extends to a worker who cares for a disabled family member, where the unfavourable treatment is connected to that situation. In this context, the employer is required to adopt reasonable adjustments capable of enabling the worker to reconcile work and caring responsibilities. However, such measures do not confer an absolute right on the worker to obtain the solutions requested. The employer’s obligation is subject to the limit of organisational and economic sustainability and cannot impose a disproportionate burden on the business. It is for the court to assess, on the specific facts, the balance between organisational needs and the right to non-discrimination.
The Court also reaffirmed that, in anti-discrimination proceedings, a relaxed evidential standard applies: the worker must provide elements capable of giving rise to a presumption of discrimination, while the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate the lawfulness of its conduct.
11 March 2026
Agile Working
Smart Working and Safety: Written Information Notice Now Central, New Penalties for Employers
Annual SME Law
On 7 April 2026 the obligation to provide safety information for work performed in smart working mode entered into force. The agile working framework has been strengthened by a measure clarifying how to comply with health and safety obligations when work is performed outside company premises.
The development arises from the need to adapt traditional rules — based on direct control of workplaces — to contexts in which the employer has no control over the working environment. In this scenario, the legislature assigns a central role to the written information notice. In particular, the employer is required to provide the worker and the safety representative, at least annually, with a document identifying the general and specific risks connected to agile working. Compliance with this obligation has substantive value: it is not a mere formality, but the instrument through which knowledge and instructions useful for prevention are transmitted. Particular attention is required regarding risks associated with the use of display screen equipment, such as visual fatigue, postural problems, and stress. The worker, in turn, is required to cooperate actively in the implementation of safety measures.
The strengthening of the information obligation is accompanied by measures on the penalty side: its breach exposes the employer to criminal and financial consequences, making it all the more important to ensure adequate organisation of health and safety arrangements in agile working.
11 March 2026
Incentives
Incentivised Part-Time Toward Retirement: Reliefs and Generational Handover for SMEs
Annual SME Law
A new measure introduces, on a pilot basis for the 2026-2027 two-year period, a mechanism designed to facilitate the gradual exit from work of employees approaching retirement, combined with generational renewal.
The measure is available to full-time permanent workers employed by private employers with up to fifty employees who will meet the pension eligibility requirements by 1 January 2028. The worker may agree with the employer to convert the relationship to part-time, with a reduction in working hours of between 25% and 50%.
The measure is supported by a dual incentive: the worker receives a full exemption from the employee’s share of pension contributions up to an annual ceiling of €3,000; and notional contribution coverage is guaranteed on the portion of remuneration not received, so as not to reduce the future pension benefit.
An essential condition for accessing the benefit is that the company hires a worker aged no more than 34 on a full-time permanent contract. The measure is also subject to numerical and spending limits, with monitoring entrusted to INPS.
30 April 2026
Personnel Administration
Collective Agreements: Unique CNEL Code Becomes Mandatory in Communications and Payslips
INPS
The measure introduces new information obligations for employers in relation to the collective agreement applied to the employment relationship. In particular, the national collective agreement must be identified by means of the unique alphanumeric code established by the CNEL.
This code must be indicated both in mandatory communications and in social security data flows, as well as on the payslip provided to the worker. The development forms part of a series of measures aimed at strengthening transparency in employment relationships and the traceability of the conditions applied.
The introduction of the unique code enables the competent authorities to monitor more effectively the actual application of collective agreements and to identify any deviations in the economic and regulatory treatment afforded to workers.
For employers, this entails an adaptation of administrative and management systems, with particular attention to the correct identification of the applicable collective agreement. For workers, the measure strengthens the guarantees of transparency and verifiability of contractual conditions.
3 April 2026
Dismissal During Probation
Probationary Clause Null Without Specific Duties: Early Termination of Fixed-Term Contract Unlawful
Milan Tribunal
A worker challenged the termination served by the employer during the probationary period, arguing that the probationary clause was null and void for failure to specify the duties subject to assessment, and claiming compensation up to the expiry of the fixed-term contract. The employer maintained that a reference to the collective agreement and the selection notice was sufficient.
The Tribunal upheld the claim, finding that a probationary clause requires a precise indication of the duties forming the subject of the assessment. This requirement may be satisfied by reference to other sources, provided the reference allows the activities to be performed to be identified in a concrete and specific manner. In the case at hand, the generic reference to the contractual classification and the selection notice did not permit the duties to be determined, amounting to no more than an abstract description of the professional profile.
Having established the nullity of the probationary clause, the termination was found to be unlawful. However, given that the contract was a fixed-term one, the judge excluded any reinstatement effect, recognising the worker’s right to compensation equal to the wages accrued up to the expiry of the term. Deduction of amounts earned elsewhere was also excluded for lack of proof as to the relevant amounts.
