March 27, 2025
Dismissal during probation
Probation period in fixed-term contracts: stricter rules from 2025
Ministry of Labour

With the entry into force of Law No. 203/2024, the legislator introduced new rules regarding the probation period for fixed-term employment contracts. The Ministry of Labour, through Circular No. 6 of 2025, clarified the scope and application methods of the new provisions.

The general rule now requires that the probation period be calculated as one actual working day for every fifteen calendar days, starting from the contract start date. The new framework sets binding limits: for contracts up to six months, the probation period must not be less than two or more than fifteen actual working days; for contracts longer than six months and shorter than twelve months, the maximum limit increases to thirty days.
For contracts exceeding twelve months, the probation period may go beyond thirty days, but only in proportion to the contract’s duration and subject to more favorable collective agreements.

The Ministry specified that a new probation period is not allowed in case of renewal for the same tasks, reiterating the rationale of worker protection. Collective bargaining cannot derogate from the rule in a less favorable way, as the norm remains mandatory in malam partem (against the employee).

March 27, 2025
Resignation
Prolonged and unjustified absence: the law now treats it as resignation
Ministry of Labour

A new form of employment termination based on the worker’s conclusive behavior has been introduced. The Ministry of Labour has provided its interpretation of the new rule’s ambiguous aspects.

If a worker is absent from work without justification for a period longer than what is provided by the collective agreement or, in any case, more than fifteen days, the employer may consider the relationship as terminated by the employee’s will. The company must then send a specific communication to the territorial office of the Labour Inspectorate.
Therefore, the employment relationship is not automatically terminated—it ends only if the employer chooses to treat the absence as a resignation and sends the notification.

Telematic resignation is not required. As for the duration of the unjustified absence, the law requires it to exceed fifteen calendar days, unless otherwise specified by the collective agreement. This is a minimum term, and the employer may send the notice starting from the sixteenth day of absence or later—not earlier.
Sending the certified email (PEC) to the inspectorate also starts the five-day period for filing the UniLav form.

It is important to note that, according to the Ministry, the thresholds set by national collective agreements for just-cause dismissal due to unjustified absence are separate and remain unaffected. In other words, even if the collective agreement allows dismissal after five days, for factual resignation the employer must still wait at least fifteen days.

March 27, 2025
Remote work – “Smart working”
Remote work: new deadlines for mandatory communications
Ministry of Labour

Starting from January 12, 2025, the timing for remote work notifications changes. The new regulation requires private employers to send notification of the start, modification, or termination of remote work within five days from the effective date.

The deadline is based on the actual start or end date of the remote work—not the date of the agreement.
For example, if the agreement is signed on January 15 with a start date of February 1, the notification must be sent by February 6. The same principle applies to extensions or early terminations of the agreement.
Nothing changes for public sector employment: the deadline remains the 20th of the month following the start of remote work, as per the special rules for public employers.

This deadline is mandatory, and failure to comply results in an administrative fine ranging from €100 to €500 for each affected worker.

March 20, 2025
Pay and benefits
MBO converted into welfare: no tax exemption if benefits are not offered to all employees
Revenue Agency

A company in the energy sector asked the Revenue Agency whether a variable portion of pay (so-called “MBO” – Management by Objectives), tied to achieving company or collective targets and converted by the employee into welfare benefits, could be exempt from taxation.

The system allowed employees classified as “Quadro” or “Impiegato” (middle management or clerical staff) to allocate their bonuses to a range of goods and services, including pension fund contributions, educational services, transport, and shopping vouchers.
However, the Agency denied the possibility of tax exemption, clarifying that such benefit is only permitted for “performance bonuses” as defined by the 2016 Stability Law and convertible into welfare via second-level bargaining agreements.

In this case, the MBO—although partially tied to company results—was part of an incentive system and did not meet the required conditions: it lacked both general applicability and a clear link to an eligible employee category.
Therefore, the tax exemption does not apply, and the provided benefits must be taxed as regular employment income.

February 28, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Only acquired rights that have become part of the worker’s assets are protected
Court of Cassation, Labour Section

A worker challenged a disciplinary dismissal after posting the phrase “abandon all hope” and a one-star rating on the company’s Google My Business profile, which had been created by the employer.

The Supreme Court found the dismissal unjustified, stating that workers have the right to criticize their employer, provided such criticism respects the limits of formal and substantive restraint and relevance.
In this case, the use of metaphorical or allegorical expressions—lacking vulgarity or defamation, even if suggestive of negativity—did not exceed the limit of formal restraint, as they did not constitute a gratuitous and destructive attack on the employer’s honor or reputation.

Criticism does not have to be constructive in the sense of explicitly prompting reconsideration by the employer, but it must be connected to a legitimate interest—such as the dignity of working conditions.

January 20, 2025
Dismissal for exceeding the sick leave threshold
Dismissal for exceeding the allowed sick leave: sending a medical certificate suspends the vacation period
Court of Cassation, Labour Section

An employee was dismissed for exceeding the allowed sick leave period—that is, for being absent due to illness beyond the limits set by law and the collective agreement.
In the preliminary proceedings, initiated by the employee to challenge the dismissal, the court rejected the employee’s claims.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the employee’s request, clarifying that a worker absent due to illness may request to use accrued but unused vacation time to suspend the sick leave period. However, in this case, sending the medical certificate during the vacation period changed the nature of the absence from vacation to sick leave.

June 4, 2024
Equal opportunity – Discrimination
Women, age, and career: indirect discrimination may stem from a manager’s statements about selection criteria
Court of Busto Arsizio

A fashion designer stated during a media event that she preferred candidates for top positions to be over forty years old and to have already experienced life events such as marriage, children, and separation—describing them as calm and able to work 24/7.

The National Association for the Fight Against Discrimination filed a lawsuit against the designer’s company, requesting a ruling of discrimination based on age, gender, and family status, in violation of equality and equal opportunity principles.
The fashion company argued that the statements had been later clarified and were not discriminatory.
The court ruled in favor of the Association.

The judge emphasized the wide media coverage of the statements, and due to the designer’s managerial role and public profile, found that the remarks had a significant influence on company decisions.
The court thus held that the company engaged in indirect discrimination by hindering women’s access to senior roles. In line with European case law, the court ordered the company to compensate the association and implement mandatory anti-discrimination training programs.