November 21, 2024
Dismissal for just cause
Employee access to the disciplinary file
Cassation Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for just cause following multiple allegations substantiated through an investigative inquiry. Specifically, the employee had falsely certified the timing of scheduled interventions, engaged in unrelated activities during work hours while improperly receiving remuneration, and consistently used the company vehicle for personal purposes.
The Court of Appeal upheld the legitimacy of the dismissal, clarifying that the employer’s investigative activities were “defensive checks” aimed at identifying unlawful acts by the employee that went beyond simple non-compliance with work obligations.
The Supreme Court confirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that the employer must first allege and then prove the specific circumstances that justified the investigation. However, the employer is not required to make internal documentation available to the employee during the disciplinary procedure.
October 16, 2024
Dismissal for Just Cause
Disciplinary procedure: validity of additional confirmatory or new circumstances in the dismissal letter
Cassation Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for just cause after a disciplinary procedure in which certain allegations were raised. Subsequently, the dismissal was based on partially different and additional circumstances. The employee challenged the dismissal.
The Supreme Court rejected the employee’s claim, explaining that in disciplinary procedures, the principle requiring the allegation to correspond to the basis of the disciplinary sanction is not violated if the employer introduces confirmatory circumstances or additional evidence during the procedure, as long as these do not compromise the employee’s right to defense.
November 28, 2024
Dismissal for Just Cause
Misunderstanding regarding leave: dismissal deemed unlawful
Cassation Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed for failing to coordinate leave with their employer. The employee had requested two weeks of leave, initially denied in writing but later verbally approved, though there was a dispute regarding the duration. The employee took both weeks of leave and was subsequently dismissed.
The Supreme Court sided with the employee, ruling that the dismissal was disproportionate and therefore unlawful, as it stemmed from a misunderstanding between the employee and the employer regarding the duration of leave.
November 29, 2024
Illness and Injury
Employees retain the right to engage in recreational activities during illness
Cassation Court, Labor Section
An employee was dismissed after being observed singing at a piano bar on a day they were absent from work due to medical leave for severe anxiety. The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing that the recreational activity was compatible with their condition.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employee, stating that participating in recreational activities, such as singing at a piano bar, is not inherently incompatible with conditions like anxiety or depression and may even aid recovery. The Court highlighted that the employer had not demonstrated that the activity hindered the employee’s recovery or return to work.
November 22, 2024
Contracting
Lack of evidence on subcontracting contracts: unlawful labor intermediation confirmed
Court of Appeal of Rome
The Rome Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling, recognizing the existence of a direct employment relationship between a worker and a bank, despite the formal involvement of a subcontractor. The case involved a cleaning staff member employed for over 20 years at the principal company’s premises.
The employer failed to provide subcontracting contracts covering the entire employment period, and the Court refused to admit witness testimonies to fill this evidentiary gap. Consequently, the Court ruled that the employer did not meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate the legitimacy of the subcontracting arrangement.
According to established case law, employers must prove that labor intermediation complies with legal requirements. The lack of adequate documentation in this case led to the employment relationship being classified as subordinate, holding the bank responsible for contractual and payroll obligations.
December 13, 2024
Settlements, conciliation, and consensual resolution
Telematic and audiovisual conciliation methods officially codified
“Collegato Lavoro”
A new law introduces telematic and audiovisual methods for conducting labor-related conciliations as outlined in Articles 410, 411, and 412-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This innovation simplifies access to protected venues as defined by Article 2113 of the Civil Code, maintaining their protective function while offering greater flexibility. For instance, union conciliation—the most commonly used out-of-court resolution method—can now be conducted virtually.
It remains crucial to safeguard the worker’s free will and ensure a neutral conciliation environment, as reaffirmed by recent case law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a “protected venue” should be seen as a functional rather than physical space, provided adequate procedural safeguards are in place.
December 17, 2024
Maternity and Paternity
Mandatory paternity leave subject to a One-Year prescription period
INPS
The INPS (National Institute for Social Security) clarified the prescription and expiration terms for mandatory paternity leave under Article 27-bis of Legislative Decree 151/2001. Specifically, a one-year prescription period applies, as outlined in Article 6 of Law 138/1943.
Regarding expiration, INPS confirmed a one-year limit per Article 47, paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree 639/1970. INPS emphasized that mandatory paternity leave aims to promote equitable sharing of parental responsibilities and gender equality in the workplace. This one-year limit aligns with the rules governing mandatory maternity leave.
