3 September 2026
Social security benefits
NASpI and reinstatement: effective restoration is what counts, but opting for fifteen months’ pay excludes the benefit
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
Two employees dismissed as part of a collective redundancy procedure had obtained the annulment of their dismissal and an order for reinstatement, and then opted for the substitute indemnity equal to fifteen months’ pay. INPS had requested repayment of the NASpI (Nuova Assicurazione Sociale per l’Impiego, the statutory unemployment benefit) paid to them and suspended the benefit.
The Supreme Court reaffirms that a court order for reinstatement alone does not end the right to unemployment benefit: effective restoration of the employment relationship, including from an economic standpoint, is required. Where that restoration has not taken place, the purely legal reconstitution of the relationship does not exclude the benefit for the period preceding the option.
Choosing the substitute indemnity, by contrast, results in the termination of the employment relationship on the worker’s own initiative and in a state of unemployment that is not involuntary, which is incompatible with NASpI for the subsequent period.
19 October 2026
Executives
Industrial executives: the employer’s contribution to supplementary pensions is due only to Previndai members
Confindustria
On 19 October 2026, Confindustria and Federmanager supplemented, with effect from the date of signature, Article 18 of the CCNL (Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro, the national collective agreement) of 13 November 2024, which applies to executives of companies producing goods and services.
The parties establish that the employer’s contribution to supplementary pensions is due exclusively for serving executives enrolled in the Previndai Fund, and only for as long as that enrolment continues.
An executive who transfers their individual position to a different supplementary pension scheme, or who joins from the outset a fund other than Previndai, immediately and automatically loses the right to the contribution payable by the company. The amount cannot be replaced with an equivalent benefit.
The provision is inserted as a new letter g-bis of paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the CCNL.
25 June 2026
Social security and contributions
DURC: contribution relief is barred if returns are late or incomplete, even where contributions have been paid
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
Two recent orders of the Court of Cassation concern employers who had paid their contributions but submitted their monthly returns late or incomplete, without regularising their position within the period granted by INPS.
The Supreme Court holds that the contribution compliance required to obtain the DURC (Documento Unico di Regolarità Contributiva, the unified document certifying contribution compliance) does not coincide with the mere payment of contributions. The correct and timely fulfilment of reporting obligations is also necessary, because the returns allow the Institute to verify the correspondence between what is declared, what is due and what has been paid.
Incomplete or late monthly returns therefore constitute an irregularity that bars the issue of the DURC and the enjoyment of contribution reliefs, even where contributions have been paid in full. Regularisation carried out after the period of fifteen days granted by INPS does not remove the irregularity for the purposes of contribution benefits.
Merit decisions which had given decisive weight to the payment of contributions alone have accordingly been quashed.
23 October 2026
Pay and benefits
Fuel and grocery vouchers for Sunday workers: exemption within fringe benefit limits
Italian Revenue Agency
A company providing essential services seven days a week intended to grant, for the two years from 2026 to 2027, fuel vouchers or multi-purpose grocery vouchers to employees ordinarily assigned to Sunday work. The amount was differentiated into bands according to the frequency of Sunday work planned for the different organisational units.
Taking as true the circumstances declared by the company, the Italian Revenue Agency held that the vouchers may be classified as fringe benefits, provided they do not constitute remuneration for the work performed or a productivity or performance bonus. Within the overall limits set for the tax period, their value does not contribute to the formation of taxable income for tax and social security purposes.
For 2025 to 2027 the threshold is EUR 1,000, raised to EUR 2,000 for employees with children who are dependent for tax purposes. All fringe benefits granted in the tax period count towards the calculation, and exceeding the threshold makes the entire value taxable. The powers of control of the tax authorities remain unaffected.
11 September 2026
Dismissal for just cause
Expired goods not disposed of: just cause for dismissal of the shop manager confirmed
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A shop manager was dismissed after around 340 expired products were found that had not been disposed of in accordance with company procedures. The Court of Appeal recognised just cause, holding that the breach of procedures was repeated and systematic.
The employee challenged the presumptive assessment of her conduct, the timeliness of the disciplinary charge and the proportionality of the dismissal. The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal: her position of responsibility, long service, knowledge of the procedures and the quantity of goods were established facts on which the lower courts could base their assessment. A different reading of the evidence is moreover not permitted before the Court of Cassation.
The conduct, although due to gross negligence rather than intent, was in itself considered capable of undermining the bond of trust. Her prior disciplinary record had merely reinforced that assessment of seriousness.
The exclusion of the discrimination alleged by the employee, who was taking leave to assist two children with disabilities, was also confirmed. There were no elements capable of presuming less favourable treatment linked to her situation, and the company had documented the presence of other beneficiaries of such leave, including in managerial roles.
6 October 2026
Agency contract
Agency: bonuses and supplementary commissions count towards the indemnity in lieu of notice
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An agent had terminated the agency relationship without notice and disputed the calculation of the indemnity claimed by the principal, which included a bonus and commissions provided for by a supplementary agreement that had expired before the termination.
The Supreme Court confirms that, where the supplementary agreement forms a substantial part of the relationship and governs further elements of remuneration for the same activity, the relevant amounts fall within the calculation base of the indemnity in lieu of notice.
The notion of sums paid in connection with the agency contract includes ordinary and supplementary commissions, premiums, incentives and bonuses, even where provided for by a supplementary agreement that had already expired at the time of termination. The right to terminate the agreement alone without notice, which was not exercised in the case examined, does not exclude such sums from the calculation base.
29 October 2026
Working time, holidays and leave
Overtime and rest periods: the flat-rate pay clause prevails over the generic item on the payslip
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker had claimed payment for overtime, work on public holidays and missed rest periods after challenging a trade union conciliation. The Court of Appeal found the conciliation invalid for lack of effective assistance but nonetheless dismissed the economic claims: the individual contract provided for a fixed monthly allowance in compensation for overtime and missed rest periods.
The Court of Cassation upheld the dismissal of the claims. The worker did not dispute having received the agreed amount, and the specific content of the contractual clause was held to prevail, as a matter of evidence, over the generic annotations on the payslips. The manner of performance established on the merits was also held to be compatible with the enjoyment of rest periods.
As regards the claim for psychophysical strain, the decisive factor was the absence of any allegation as to the type and the significance of the harm.
