May 16, 2025
Equal opportunities – Discrimination
Full protection granted to de facto partner in a family business
Supreme Court, Labor Section
The case arose from the request of a woman who, after years of cohabitation and continuous work in her partner’s (non-marital) agricultural business, asked the court to recognize her participation in the family enterprise and to liquidate her due share. The Court of Appeal had rejected the claim, denying her rights to profit participation and the application of additional protections under Article 230-bis of the Civil Code to an unmarried cohabiting partner.
However, during the same period, the Constitutional Court declared the legislation unconstitutional insofar as it failed to protect stable cohabitants who provide continuous labor to the business, thereby violating principles of substantive equality, the right to work, and fair remuneration.
Adopting this position, the Supreme Court sided with the former cohabiting worker, affirming that a genuine and consistent contribution to a business must be recognized and protected, even in the absence of marriage. The judges emphasized the importance of the substance of family relationships over their formal classification.
May 13, 2025
Severance pay, notice, and other termination indemnities
Monthly TFR advances considered wages by the Supreme Court if conditions are not met
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee had received monthly payments over a long period as advances on severance pay (TFR), without any specific justification and in the absence of the legal requirements. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court, which emphasized the strict conditions required for lawful early payment of TFR.
According to the Court, for the advance to be legitimate, specific conditions must be met: a clearly defined reason, its exceptional (one-time) nature, and respect for quantitative limits. If TFR is paid periodically and automatically without meeting these requirements, the amounts are considered wages in every respect, triggering the employer’s contribution obligations.
This ruling reinforces a restrictive interpretation of TFR advances, confirming that any deviation from the ordinary rules must be explicitly justified and limited. Employers must therefore carefully assess how they manage such advances to avoid tax and contribution liabilities.
April 8, 2025
Settlement, conciliation, mutual termination
Conciliation over rights protected by mandatory rules is valid only in union settings
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee, dismissed for just cause, challenged a conciliation agreement signed the same day of the dismissal at the company’s premises, assisted by a union representative not chosen by him. The Court of Appeal upheld the conciliation, but the employee appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court accepted the appeal, reiterating that irrevocable conciliation agreements concerning rights protected by mandatory law require not just union assistance, but also must be signed in a “protected venue,” such as a union office. Company premises do not guarantee the neutrality necessary for ensuring the worker’s free and unpressured decision-making.
Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that a conciliation agreement signed at the employer’s premises, even with union assistance, remains challengeable, as it does not comply with the safeguards provided for worker protection. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeal for a new assessment.
March 16, 2025
Employment contract – Ancillary clauses
Valid non-compete clause: the employee must pay the penalty for breach
Parma Tribunal
A bank financial consultant resigned to work for a new bank, despite having signed a non-compete agreement with the former employer. The agreement prohibited competing activity for 12 months after termination in Emilia-Romagna and provinces within 250 km of the company’s headquarters, in exchange for annual compensation.
The employee challenged the clause in court, while the former employer requested its enforcement and the penalty for breach. The Tribunal sided with the bank. The judge found the clause valid both in scope—since it did not unreasonably restrict the employee’s professional skills—and in geographic extent, considering banking activities span the entire national territory.
The decision confirms the binding nature of well-drafted non-compete clauses and the limitation on an employee’s freedom when they have knowingly accepted post-contractual restrictions. The employee was ordered to pay the agreed penalties for breach of the agreement.
May 22, 2024
Compensation and benefits
Stock grants are considered compensation if provided for in the contract: the court orders return of shares
Verona Tribunal
A former executive sued his former employer, seeking the return of 395 shares that had been unlawfully removed from his U.S. brokerage account. These shares, granted by the foreign parent company under a multi-year incentive plan, were — according to the claimant — part of his contractual compensation.
The defendant company did not appear in court and provided no justification for the removal of the shares, which had been carried out by the parent company.
The Tribunal fully upheld the claim, holding that the shares were indeed part of the employee’s remuneration, as indicated in the employment contract, treated as taxable income, and recorded on the payslips.
The court acknowledged the presence of a delegated payment arrangement, since the parent company had fulfilled the employer’s compensation obligation. It ordered the employer to procure and credit the 395 shares to the indicated account and fulfill the related tax obligations. The ruling is significant regarding deferred compensation and third-party incentive plans.
March 16, 2025
Individual dismissal
Retaliatory dismissal: the employee’s refusal is justified if the company’s demand is unreasonable
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A female employee working as a security guard was dismissed for refusing to use a company car that, due to her physical characteristics, she could not operate. Although she offered to perform alternative duties, the company proceeded with termination.
The ensuing legal dispute led lower courts to uphold the employee’s claim, recognizing the retaliatory nature of the dismissal. The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome, reiterating important principles.
First, in employment relationships, the principle of reciprocity allows the employee to refuse to perform work if the employer’s conduct is unlawful, provided the refusal is proportionate and made in good faith.
Regarding the retaliatory nature of the dismissal, the Court stated it can be established based on presumptions, using the same evidence that supports a finding of unjustified dismissal, along with additional facts, to be cautiously evaluated by the trial judges.
March 27, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Employer’s tolerance of illegal conduct does not preclude dismissal
Supreme Court, Labor Section
The case involves a logistics company employee dismissed for smoking in a restricted “air-side” area of the airport, despite knowing it was prohibited. The Court of Appeal had ruled the dismissal illegitimate, citing a widespread practice among employees and lack of enforcement by the company.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer’s mere tolerance does not eliminate an employee’s responsibility. The smoking ban violation remains unlawful, even if the employer failed to respond immediately. An employee’s mistake is excusable only if they did everything possible to comply with the law.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal for just cause, reiterating that the employer’s previous tolerance does not negate the illegality of the conduct.
