5 May 2026
Maternity and paternity
Dismissed before the child’s first birthday: a mere disciplinary infraction is not enough
Tribunal of Varese
A worker who had returned to the company after a period of maternity and parental leave was made the subject of disciplinary charges and, ultimately, of a dismissal for just cause. The measure was adopted before her child had reached one year of age. The company alleged that the employee had clocked her return from her lunch break and had then remained in the first-aid room to rest instead of immediately resuming her work activity.
The Tribunal found that the alleged conduct had indeed occurred. However, this was not considered sufficient to overcome the special protection afforded to working mothers. The court recalled that, during the protected period, dismissal is permitted only where there is particularly serious fault, to be assessed according to stricter criteria than those normally applied in disciplinary dismissals. In the case examined, the conduct alleged, although disciplinarily relevant, was not considered serious enough to justify termination. Indeed, a comparison with the provisions of the collective agreement showed that the conduct was closer to those situations punishable by conservative measures than to those capable of warranting expulsion from the employment relationship.
For this reason, the dismissal was declared null and void, with recognition of the economic protections afforded to the worker. The ruling confirms that the protection of maternity requires a particularly strict assessment of the seriousness of the alleged conduct where the termination occurs within the child’s first year of life.
2 March 2026
Dismissal for supervening incapacity
Dismissal for incapacity: the employer is liable if it relies solely on the competent doctor’s opinion
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker had been dismissed for supervening incapacity to perform his duties on the basis of the opinion expressed by the company’s competent doctor (medico competente). Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had found, through medico-legal expert assessment, that the worker was in fact fit to carry out his duties, and had accordingly declared the dismissal unlawful. However, the lower courts had excluded the right to compensation, finding that the company had acted without fault, having relied on the assessments of the appointed doctor.
The Court of Cassation criticised that conclusion. The ruling clarifies that a finding of incapacity made by the competent doctor does not automatically require the employer to terminate the relationship. On the contrary, the company must first verify the possibility of assigning the worker to other duties compatible with his state of health and assess any organisational solutions capable of preserving his employment.
According to the Supreme Court, mere reliance on the opinion of the competent doctor is not sufficient to exclude the employer’s liability. Unlike assessments carried out by public bodies or institutions, the opinion of the competent doctor comes from a professional who acts as an auxiliary of the employer. Accordingly, any errors of assessment may be attributed to the company, which is liable for the activities carried out by those assisting it. Before proceeding with a dismissal for supervening incapacity, therefore, the employer must carry out adequate checks and cannot simply adopt the competent doctor’s opinion without further verification.
12 May 2026
Dismissal for just cause
Accusing the company of “stealing” from employees can cost you your job: the limits of the right to criticise
Tribunal of Rome
A worker challenged the dismissal for just cause served on her following a dispute with the HR department arising from a query over an item on her payslip. According to the company, the employee had accused it of “stealing” workers’ money, calling its integrity into question and inviting colleagues to check their own payslips. The worker maintained, by contrast, that she had merely sought clarification and discussed the matter with other employees.
The Tribunal, on the basis of the witness evidence gathered, found the employer’s account of events to be established and confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal. The ruling provides an opportunity to reaffirm the limits of a worker’s right to criticise his or her employer. That right is certainly protected and may be exercised even forcefully, particularly where it concerns matters relating to the employment relationship. It is, however, subject to certain limits: the criticism must be based on facts believed to be true, must be connected to an interest deserving of protection and, above all, must be expressed in a correct and proportionate manner.
According to the Tribunal, attributing to the company conduct akin to taking money from its employees amounts to a particularly serious accusation that is damaging to the employer’s reputation. Where the language used goes beyond the expression of disagreement and becomes offensive or disparaging, the trust underpinning the employment relationship is undermined, and the most severe disciplinary sanction may be justified.
9 June 2026
Self-employment and employment
Co.co.co. arrangements and subordination: the Court of Cassation reaffirms the limits of its review
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker had brought proceedings against her employer arguing that certain relationships formally classified as coordinated and continuous collaboration arrangements (co.co.co., collaborazioni coordinate e continuative) should be regarded as employment relationships. According to the claimant, such reclassification would have allowed those periods also to be taken into account for the purposes of her claim for damages arising from the unlawful repetition of fixed-term contracts. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding that subordination had not been proven.
The worker therefore appealed to the Court of Cassation, complaining that the lower courts had failed adequately to take into account certain documentary evidence, including time-clock records and the actual manner in which the activity had been carried out. The Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. The judges recalled that an alleged error of law cannot be relied upon to obtain a fresh assessment of evidence already examined in the previous stages of proceedings. The determination of whether a relationship is subordinate or self-employed in nature requires an assessment of the facts and of the evidence gathered, which falls within the competence of the court hearing the merits.
3 March 2026
Social security and contributions
INPS contributions: a new company classification cannot be applied retroactively
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from an inspection in the course of which INPS had found that a company had failed to pay social security contributions, taking the view that a procurement contract in fact disguised an unlawful supply of labour. Following that finding, the Institute had also altered the company’s social security classification, demanding payment of higher contributions with retroactive effect. After the company’s claims were dismissed in the first two stages of proceedings, the Court of Cassation addressed the issue of when the new contribution classification should take effect.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that measures by which INPS alters an employer’s classification take effect only from the pay period current at the date on which notice of the change is served. Retroactive effect is an exception and may apply solely where the original classification was determined by inaccurate statements made by the employer at the commencement of its activity. The mere failure to report subsequent organisational or production changes within the company is not sufficient. In such cases, the law provides for specific penalties, but does not permit the different classification to be backdated.
The ruling confirms a principle of particular significance for businesses, limiting the risk that a subsequent revision of a company’s classification might result in the retroactive recovery of contributions on the basis of facts arising after the original registration.
4 June 2026
Health and safety at work
Asbestos in outsourced work: the principal is liable if it fails to oversee safety
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from a claim brought by the heirs of a worker who had died of pleural mesothelioma, who sought compensation for damages on the ground that the illness had been caused by exposure to asbestos fibres during work carried out in premises affected by outsourced works. After the employer’s liability was established in the lower courts, the dispute came before the Court of Cassation.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision in favour of the heirs, reaffirming that outsourcing work does not relieve the principal of its protective obligations where it retains availability of and control over the workplace. The principal remains under a duty to oversee the adoption of preventive and protective measures, to provide adequate information on the risks present, and to cooperate with the contractor to ensure the safety of workers.
The ruling highlights that liability may arise even where the damage results from exposure to harmful agents present at the worksite that is the subject of the outsourced contract, where it is not shown that there was effective and ongoing oversight of compliance with safety requirements. The Court further noted that insurance indemnification does not cover temporary biological damage, which may therefore form the subject of a separate award of compensation. The ruling confirms the broad scope of the oversight obligations placed on the principal and the importance of the concrete management of interference risks.
28 May 2026
Social security and contributions
INAIL premiums 2026: daily minimum for the taxable base rises to Euro 58.13
INPS
In its circular on the minimum thresholds of taxable remuneration for the calculation of insurance premiums, INAIL has announced the values to be applied for 2026 for the purposes of determining the taxable base on which premiums against workplace injuries and occupational diseases are calculated.
The document summarises the criteria to be used to verify the correct taxable remuneration and updates the minimum thresholds on the basis of the annual revaluation linked to ISTAT indices. For employees generally, the daily minimum rises to Euro 58.13, corresponding to Euro 1,511.38 on a monthly basis on the assumption of 26 working days. The taxable remuneration to be used for calculating the premium must therefore be compared both with the minimums provided for by the applicable collective agreement and with the new statutory limit, with the higher value being adopted.
The circular also summarises the rules applicable to notional remuneration, part-time employment relationships, workers operating abroad, coordinated and continuous collaborators, and other categories for which specific criteria for determining the insurable taxable base apply.
The update is of operational interest to all companies, which are required to verify that the taxable bases used for the calculation of INAIL premiums in 2026 comply with the new minimum values set by the Institute.
