September 6, 2024
Employee Monitoring
The use of surveillance footage for dismissal is legitimate
Cass., Labor Section
An employee working at a ticket office was dismissed for failing to return the correct change to customers and not recording excess cash in the till. The employer became aware of these actions through footage from the company’s surveillance camera. The employee decided to take legal action, claiming the dismissal was illegitimate. The worker argued that the cameras had been installed in violation of Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute and that, in any case, the viewing of recorded images for purposes other than protecting company assets should have been allowed only following a request from the judiciary. The Supreme Court sided with the employer for several reasons. First, the surveillance system had been installed following an agreement with trade unions, thus complying with the law. Secondly, the union agreement did not require specific requests when the purpose was to protect company assets, which included employee misappropriation of money.
Therefore, the Court upheld the legitimacy of the dismissal.
September 26, 2024
Individual Dismissal
A courier who loses their driver’s license and fails to inform their employer can be dismissed
Cass., Labor Section
A postal delivery worker using a moped was dismissed for driving a company vehicle with a suspended license for months and wearing an unfastened helmet. Despite being aware of the situation, the employee did not inform the employer of the license suspension, nor did they request to be reassigned to different duties. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeals sided with the employer.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the worker’s behavior, consisting of driving the vehicle for several months without a valid license, constituted intentional misconduct that could have caused potential harm to the company. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the deception in not informing the employer of such an important issue, and although the employer did not suffer financially, the damage stemmed from the three-month administrative seizure of the moped and the inability to assign the vehicle and worker to the intended service.
September 19, 2024
Compensation and Benefits
Discounts on goods and services are not considered compensation
Cass., Labor Section
In a company, a collective contract provided a discount on electricity bills for employees. The company decided to withdraw from this contract and no longer offer the discount. The employees challenged the company’s decision, seeking the reinstatement of the benefit.
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the company, stating that the discount could not be considered part of the employees’ compensation and that the company had the right to withdraw from the collective agreement. The Court of Cassation confirmed this decision, ruling that the nature of the discount excluded it from being considered as compensation, as there was no correlation between the benefit and the work performance. In this case, the discount on electricity consumption was applied regardless of the quality and quantity of work provided by the individual employee.
September 17, 2024
Social Safety Nets
Ape sociale is granted even without NASPI usage
Cass., Labor Section
A worker took legal action against INPS, which had refused to recognize her entitlement to Ape sociale (early retirement) because she had not used NASPI (unemployment benefit) beforehand.
The Court of Cassation ruled in favor of the worker, noting that the right to Ape sociale is granted to individuals who lose their job involuntarily, even if they have not received unemployment benefits, since the relevant law (2017 Budget Law) does not explicitly require this prerequisite.
September 25, 2024
Sickness and Injury
Notification of sickness via fax is allowed if the company regulations provide for it
Cass., Labor Section
A worker who fell ill while on vacation abroad sent a medical certificate to the company via fax. Although the court acknowledged a certain lack of diligence on the worker’s part, the judge ruled that sending the fax, as provided by the company’s regulations, and proving its receipt through the transmission report were sufficient to clear the worker of any charges, despite the lack of a prior phone call, which was also required by the company regulations but not formally contested by the employer.
The Court of Cassation upheld this reasoning, highlighting that fax communication was expressly provided for by the company’s regulations. Additionally, the Court reiterated that the law does not exclude alternative methods to registered mail, as long as they are in accordance with company policies or practices.
September 20, 2024
Health and Safety at Work
Workplace injury: employer responsibility and elective risk
Cass., Labor Section
A worker died after falling from the roof of a house while performing waterproofing work.
In response to the heirs’ request for compensation, the company argued that the worker had contributed to the accident through his negligence. The Court of Cassation ultimately sided with the worker’s heirs. The judges reiterated that the employer is obligated to ensure worker safety, even in cases of imprudent or negligent behavior on the part of the worker. The employer’s liability can only be excluded in cases of “elective risk,” where the worker engages in actions entirely unrelated and disproportionate to the instructions given. The use of a non-compliant ladder, not provided by the employer, as in this case, did not constitute contributory negligence. The Court emphasized that the lack of proper equipment and supervision by the employer was crucial in causing the accident.
July 30, 2024
Whistleblowing
ANAC sanctions retaliatory actions and strengthens whistleblower protection
ANAC
A manager reported alleged wrongdoing by the director of the same company to the responsible authority for corruption prevention and transparency. Specifically, the manager pointed out the assignment of tasks in violation of procedures and a potential conflict of interest. A few days after the report, the manager suffered severe retaliatory actions, including the downgrading of his position and a very negative performance evaluation. The manager reported this behavior to ANAC, which ruled in his favor.
ANAC fined the director €10,000, highlighting the misuse of power. ANAC recognized the manager as a whistleblower, noting that the report had not been handled with the required confidentiality and that the director’s justification for staff rotation was merely a pretext for harming the whistleblower. Legislative Decree No. 24/2023 allows employees to report retaliatory acts to ANAC, which can launch an investigation and, if it confirms the retaliatory nature of the action, invalidate the acts.
