4 February 2026
Dismissal for economic reasons
Joint employment within a group: redeployment opportunities must also be assessed at the foreign joint employer
Tribunal of Milan
An employee dismissed following the elimination of his position as marketing manager had argued that his employment relationship was jointly attributable to the Italian company and a foreign company within the group.
The Tribunal recognised the existence of a single employing entity, placing particular weight on the undifferentiated use of the employee’s services in the interests of both companies and their shared exercise of employer powers. It found that the elimination of the position had been established, but that the impossibility of redeploying the employee had not: there was no evidence demonstrating the absence of alternative positions at the foreign company as well.
For the purposes of the workforce threshold determining the applicable remedy, however, the Tribunal took account only of staff employed in Italy, excluding those employed at the foreign establishment. Having found the dismissal unlawful, it ordered the companies, jointly and severally, to pay the employee compensation equivalent to twelve months’ salary.
30 July 2026
Working time, holidays and leave
Leave under Law No. 104/1992: use for activities unrelated to caregiving may justify dismissal
Tribunal of Sassari
An employee had been dismissed following investigations which revealed that, on numerous days of leave taken to care for a family member with a disability, she had engaged in activities that could not be linked, even indirectly, to caregiving.
The Tribunal held that defensive investigations aimed at establishing possible fraudulent misuse of leave were lawful, distinguishing them from monitoring the ordinary performance of work duties. It rejected the allegation that the disciplinary charges had been brought too late, as they had been notified shortly after the investigation report was delivered.
The evidence gathered had not confirmed that the leave had actually been used for caregiving. The Judge found an abuse of rights that undermined the employer’s trust to such an extent as to justify dismissal for just cause, and dismissed the employee’s claim.
1 October 2026
Duties and demotion
An employee in a managerial grade retains the right to duties corresponding to the grade awarded
Court of Appeal of Bologna
A bank employee, who had been promoted to quadro direttivo (a managerial grade) while managing a branch, had subsequently been seconded to a group company and assigned predominantly routine data-entry duties. The Tribunal had recognised the demotion but had considered the managerial grade to have been awarded solely by agreement, and had ordered her assignment to duties within the third professional area.
The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, placing particular weight on the collective and supplementary agreements in force at the time of the promotion: the role of branch manager was consistent with the grade awarded, and the retention of her previous duties, as stated in the company’s letter, did not establish that the grade had been awarded solely by agreement.
The employee was therefore entitled to duties corresponding to the first level of the managerial grade, rather than merely to those within the third professional area.
16 September 2026
Social security and contributions
Limitation periods for contributions: the court cannot disregard documents that become available and are submitted on appeal
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A contributor had obtained a declaration that an INPS claim was time-barred. During the appeal proceedings, INPS had submitted, together with its written submissions in lieu of an oral hearing, a payment demand obtained from the collection agent after the procedural deadlines had expired, relying on it as an act interrupting the limitation period.
The Supreme Court recalled that interruption of a limitation period is a defence which may also be considered by the court of its own motion on the basis of evidence duly admitted to the proceedings. In labour proceedings, documents that become available after the procedural deadlines may be submitted subsequently; the court may also order their admission where they are indispensable to the decision.
The Court of Appeal should have assessed the admissibility of the document and, if necessary, invited the parties to make submissions on it, rather than disregarding its existence. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
24 September 2026
Health and safety at work
Workers’ safety representative and design-stage safety coordinator: incompatibility depends on the company’s activities on site
Ministry of Labour
Is it permissible to entrust the same employee with the roles of workers’ safety representative (RLS) and design-stage safety coordinator (CSP)? The Commission for Replies to Queries distinguished between situations according to whether the company operates on the construction site.
Although there is no express statutory prohibition, the Commission considers the roles incompatible only where the company operates directly on the construction site during the execution phase, using its own employees.
In that situation, the RLS would exercise protective and consultation functions in relation to workers affected by design decisions that the same person had made as CSP. This would undermine the necessary distinction between the person who draws up the safety and coordination plan and the representative called upon to examine it, with potential implications for the latter’s autonomy, independence and impartiality.
16 October 2026
Maternity and paternity
Mothers’ bonus 2026: EUR 60 per month, up to EUR 720, upon application to INPS
INPS
INPS has outlined the new mothers’ bonus for 2026, payable upon application at EUR 60 for each month or part of a month of work, up to a maximum of EUR 720. The benefit is available to employed women, excluding domestic workers, and self-employed women whose total annual income from work does not exceed EUR 40,000.
Applicants must be mothers of two children, with the youngest aged under ten, or of at least three children, with the youngest aged under eighteen. For mothers with at least three children, the bonus is not payable for any month during which an employment relationship of indefinite duration exists, even for only part of that month. Such employment may, where the relevant conditions are met, qualify for the separate exemption from invalidity, old-age and survivors’ insurance contributions (IVS).
The monthly amounts due for 2026 will be paid in a single instalment in December. Applications may be submitted through the INPS service, its Contact Centre or a patronato (a welfare advice and assistance body); the opening date for the online application procedure will be announced in a subsequent message. The bonus does not count towards taxable income and is disregarded for the purposes of ISEE, the indicator of equivalent economic status.
20 July 2026
Trade union relations
Workplace trade union representation: refusal of recognition constitutes anti-union conduct where the representativeness requirements are met
Court of Appeal of Rome
A trade union in the banking sector had challenged the company’s refusal to recognise its workplace trade union representation (RSA) and its failure to provide information in connection with the transfer of a business unit. The Tribunal had dismissed both claims.
The Court of Appeal found that the union’s representativeness within the banking sector had been established on the basis of its geographical presence, membership, the collective agreements it had signed and its trade union activities. It therefore declared that the continuing refusal to recognise the RSA constituted anti-union conduct and ordered the company to recognise it.
However, the claim concerning the failure to follow the information procedure for the transfer was dismissed: the transaction had already been completed, and no continuing adverse effects had been pleaded and proved.
