11 March 2026
Workplace harassment
Persecution by colleagues: the employer is liable if it fails to protect the worker
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker had sought compensation for damages suffered as a result of repeated persecutory conduct carried out by colleagues. The sick leave arising from an anxiety-depressive condition had also led to dismissal for exceeding the sick leave entitlement period (periodo di comporto). The Tribunal had partially upheld the claims; the Court of Appeal had confirmed the company’s liability, redetermining the compensation at Euro 71,165.45.
The Court of Cassation confirmed the decision. The employer is liable where it fails to adopt adequate measures to prevent or put a stop to harmful conduct in the workplace, even where that conduct is materially carried out by other employees. Biological damage and moral suffering must be assessed separately, avoiding duplication, whilst personalisation of the compensation award is permissible where consequences emerge that are anomalous and specific by comparison with those ordinarily taken into account.
The ruling reaffirms that the company must intervene promptly in the face of signs of isolation, hostility, or persecution among colleagues. Inaction may result in full compensation for health-related damages, including temporary ones, provided they are adequately pleaded and proved.
15 May 2026
Self-employment and employment
Sports coaches: coordination with the club is not enough to establish subordination
Court of Appeal of Rome
A worker who had been engaged for many years as a coach and technical director of a sports club brought proceedings arguing that the relationships formally classified as self-employed engagements in fact concealed an employment relationship. Some of the claims had been upheld at first instance, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision in its entirety. The judges emphasised that the classification of the relationship does not depend on the label assigned by the parties but on the concrete manner in which the activity was performed.
In the case examined, a number of factors proved decisive as being incompatible with employment: the absence of a predetermined attendance obligation, autonomy in the organisation of the activity, the freedom to manage commitments and away trips, the issuance of professional invoices, and the lack of any effective managerial, disciplinary, or supervisory power exercised by the club.
The Court further clarified that the necessary coordination with the sports organisation and its competitive programmes does not, in itself, constitute an indicator of subordination. In activities that require integration into an organised structure, alignment with the club’s needs may be perfectly consistent with self-employment, provided that the service provider retains genuine autonomy in the execution of the activity.
The boundary between self-employment and subordination must therefore be identified through an overall assessment of the concrete terms of the relationship, with primary weight given to whether the worker is effectively subject to the employer’s organisational and managerial authority.
13 May 2026
Dismissal for just cause
Dismissal for recidivism: a new offence is required, prior sanctions alone are not sufficient
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from a disciplinary dismissal served on a worker on the basis of the recidivism provisions of the applicable collective agreement. The employer had relied on a number of prior conservative sanctions, considering the conditions for termination to be satisfied. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal, attaching decisive weight to the existence of at least three prior disciplinary suspensions within the relevant period.
The Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision, clarifying that the concept of recidivism necessarily presupposes the commission of a new disciplinarily relevant act of conduct. Prior sanctions already imposed for earlier conduct cannot, in themselves, justify dismissal, as the disciplinary power in respect of that conduct has already been exhausted.
According to the Supreme Court, the contractual provision linking dismissal to recidivism requires two distinct elements: a new disciplinary offence on the one hand, and the existence of prior sanctions of the type specified by the collective agreement on the other. Establishing the prior disciplinary record alone is therefore insufficient.
The ruling further reaffirms that a different interpretation would amount to attributing fresh sanctioning force to conduct already punished, in conflict with the principle of ne bis in idem in disciplinary proceedings. The court to which the case has been remitted must therefore verify whether the last act of conduct alleged against the worker is genuinely established and, only where that further offence is present, assess the lawfulness of the dismissal founded on recidivism.
25 May 2026
Monitoring of workers
Unusable camera footage, but the dismissal may be sustained on other evidence
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A supermarket worker had been dismissed for consuming products on sale without paying for them and for breaching the hygiene rules of her department. The allegations had come to light through recordings made by cameras installed by an investigative agency. The Tribunal had dismissed the challenge, whilst the Court of Appeal had declared the dismissal unlawful, finding the footage inadmissible on the ground that the employer had not proved the existence of a well-founded suspicion prior to the surveillance.
The Court of Cassation criticised that conclusion. The inadmissibility of the video recordings does not prevent the court from assessing the other evidence properly admitted, nor the worker’s substantial failure to contest the facts. The Court of Appeal had indeed excluded proof of the alleged conduct for the purposes of the dismissal, whilst at the same time relying on the worker’s admission of the facts and on statements made by other workers in order to dismiss the damages claim.
The case must therefore be re-examined to determine whether, even without the footage, the other evidence is sufficient to establish the conduct alleged and its seriousness. For employers, the ruling confirms that an unlawful defensive surveillance operation may render the footage inadmissible, but does not automatically extinguish every other source of evidence. It remains essential to document with precision both the grounds for the surveillance and any independent elements relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings.
27 May 2026
Social security and contributions
Undistributed profits: no INPS contributions due for shareholders of limited liability companies
Tribunal of Foggia
A shareholder acting as sole director of a limited liability company (società a responsabilità limitata) challenged an INPS demand for payment of Euro 3,895.54 in additional contributions for 2018. The Institute had included in the contribution base a share of the profits generated by the company, notwithstanding that those profits had not been distributed.
The Tribunal upheld the claim. The profits of a limited liability company are relevant for the shareholder only when they are actually received. Mere participation in the share capital does not, in itself, generate income subject to contributions. The position is different for partnerships (società di persone), in which business income is attributed to the partners even independently of actual distribution.
INPS could have demonstrated that the profits had in fact been distributed, or that their non-distribution was pursued for fraudulent purposes. In the absence of such evidence, the contribution demand was declared unfounded.
The ruling offers practical guidance for shareholders and directors enrolled in the artisan or commercial management schemes: profits left within the company, reinvested, or set aside as reserves do not automatically form part of the personal contribution base. It remains essential, however, to document clearly the destination of the profits and the absence of indirect attributions to shareholders.
1 June 2026
Maternity and paternity
A father who resigns within the child’s first year is not required to give notice
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker who had taken compulsory paternity leave resigned within the first year of his daughter’s life without serving notice. The company withheld Euro 5,648.61 from his final pay. The worker obtained an injunction order and the lower courts confirmed his right to restitution.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the company’s appeal. It clarified that a father who resigns during the protected period is not required to give notice, even where he has not taken parental leave. The protection operates in an analogous manner for both parents and cannot depend on a leave choice that, for the father, is optional.
It is, however, necessary that the employer be aware of the employee’s family circumstances. Such awareness may already be established, as in the case examined, or may be communicated at the time of resignation.
In practical terms, the company may not retain the payment in lieu of notice if the father resigns within the child’s first year of life and makes his circumstances known. Before making any deductions, it is therefore necessary to verify the protected period and the information available.
8 June 2026
Duties and demotion
Higher classification: length of service alone is not sufficient
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
Five workers employed under a procurement contract sought recognition of a higher pay classification and payment of the resulting differential. The Tribunal had upheld the claim, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding the pleadings and evidence concerning the duties actually performed to be insufficient.
The Court of Cassation confirmed the dismissal of the claims. To obtain a higher classification it is not enough to demonstrate that the required period has been spent in the lower position. The worker must describe in specific terms the activities actually performed, the level of competence and professional expertise acquired, the requirements for progression, and their continuity over time.
Generic, evaluative, or collective grounds of evidence referring indiscriminately to a group of employees are not sufficient. Employment letters and payslips may prove length of service, but they do not substitute for the pleading of the duties performed and the professional requirements met.
The ruling underlines the importance of building the claim from the outset with precise facts and individualised evidence. In classification disputes, length of service alone does not automatically result in regrading where the applicable collective agreement also requires specific professional competencies.
