April 17, 2025
Health and safety at work
With the new State-Regions agreement, worker training must take place before starting any duties
State-Regions Conference

Under the new Agreement, effective from May 24, 2025, the Government, Regions, and Autonomous Provinces have redefined the regulations on health and safety training in the workplace, introducing specific organizational and documentation obligations for employers.
The provision defines the duration and minimum content of training programs for employees, supervisors, managers, and even employers themselves when they directly perform the duties of the prevention and protection service.
The employer must ensure that training is designed according to the actual risk present in the company, involving institutional or accredited training providers, and selecting instructors who meet the required qualifications.
Training may be delivered in person, via synchronous videoconference, or through e-learning, with the possibility of blended methods, provided they meet the technical requirements of the Agreement.

Among the main obligations, the employer must:

Develop a detailed training plan

Limit the number of participants per course

Ensure attendance of at least 90% of the required hours

Keep all course documentation (course file) for at least 10 years

Ensure a written final assessment report and the issuance of a certificate

Periodic training updates also become a mandatory and verifiable element.
Importantly, the previous 60-day grace period after hiring for mandatory training is abolished: now, the worker must be trained before starting work duties.
This initial training includes both the general 4-hour course and the specific training related to the risks associated with the assigned role.
Therefore, new hires cannot start working without completing the required training programs.
Failure to comply with these new obligations may render the training invalid and expose the company to liability.
Regions may introduce more favorable measures for the protection of workplace safety.

June 16, 2025
Incentives
Higher paycheck for those who postpone retirement: the deferral incentive is extended in 2025
INPS

In a recent circular, INPS issued operational instructions for managing the renewed retirement deferral incentive, expanded by the 2025 Budget Law.
In addition to workers eligible for flexible early retirement (quota 103), it now also applies to those who qualify for ordinary early retirement.

The mechanism is simple: a worker who chooses to remain employed despite being eligible for retirement can opt out of paying their share of IVS (pension) contributions. The employer is thus exempted from paying that portion but must still pay their own contribution share.
The worker’s portion not paid to the pension fund is added in full to their net salary, tax-free — a tangible benefit for those who delay retirement.

The incentive is available until December 31, 2025, and can only be used once in a worker’s lifetime, with only one chance to revoke the decision.
Excluded are those already receiving a direct pension (except disability allowances) and those who have reached the standard retirement age.

It is an opportunity that requires careful consideration: deferring retirement may bring short-term financial gains but could reduce future pension benefits.
Both employers and workers should carefully evaluate this choice.

June 5, 2025
Agile work – “Smart working”
Workplace: for workers who travel regularly, their home is not their place of work
Vicenza Court

A worker, employed as an external sales representative, challenged his dismissal in the court of his residence, arguing that his home was his usual place of work.
The employer contested the court’s jurisdiction. The court sided with the employer.

The judge distinguished between workers who consistently work from home — such as correspondents — whose homes may function as editorial offices, and mobile workers — like the salesperson — who perform tasks at various client locations.
In this case, the home was not set up as a permanent office nor was it the main place of activity.

The worker, a smart worker (not a home worker), also went to the company premises and worked with minimal tools (PC and phone).
This ruled out the classification of the home as a “company branch”, which would have justified the court’s jurisdiction.

May 5, 2025
Salary and benefits
A “superminimo” is not absorbable upon promotion to a higher level, if the contract excludes it
Court of Cassation, Labor Section

A worker filed a lawsuit to obtain recognition of a higher contractual level.
The Court of Appeal upheld the claim, ruling that the previously granted “superminimo” (contractual bonus above minimum wage) was not absorbable.

There was a written agreement between the parties stating that the superminimo was absorbable only in the case of future increases established by the collective agreement or personal bonuses — not in the case of a higher contractual level.

The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the superminimo should be absorbable in case of promotion.
The Court of Cassation rejected this argument, confirming that the superminimo was absorbable only against collective minimum wage increases.
A level promotion, being linked to greater responsibility, higher duties, or seniority, is a different pay progression and does not fall under the agreement.
The ruling confirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision in favor of the worker.

May 21, 2025
Business transfer
Transfer of a business unit? Actual organizational autonomy is required, not just a declared one
Milan Court

A group of workers challenged their transfer following the alleged sale of a business unit, arguing that it was merely a formal move and that the transferred portion lacked real operational autonomy.

The court ruled in favor of the workers, finding that the so-called “business unit” was not a pre-existing autonomous entity, but rather a selected group of activities and personnel without genuine self-sufficiency.

Transferred employees were immediately reassigned to different tasks at the buyer’s company, losing their roles and operational references.
The judge recalled that, for a business unit transfer to be legitimate, the transferred unit must already have had the structure and means necessary to autonomously carry out an economic activity before the transfer.
Such autonomy must be real, not just on paper.

Without these conditions, the employment contract transfer is ineffective.
The selling company was ordered to reinstate the workers.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the worker’s interest in the continuity of employment conditions must be protected, even during business reorganizations.

May 28, 2025
Dismissal for economic reasons
Reinstatement for unlawful dismissal: applies when multiple companies act as one unit
Naples Court

A worker contested her dismissal for justified objective reasons, arguing that the claimed economic crisis was unfounded and that the employer failed to fulfill its obligation to reassign her to other roles.

She also sought recognition of the actual employment start date, claiming she worked continuously under two companies that were in fact a single employer.
The court fully accepted her claim, finding that the two companies operated as a single entity.

Referring to established Supreme Court case law, the judge found significant overlap between the companies:

Same office space

Same administrator

Same email domain

Unified project management and HR

The employer evaluated redundancies and potential reassignments considering only one of the companies (the one formally listed in the contract), ignoring the entire business structure.
This omission invalidated the dismissal, as the employer failed to meet the reassignment obligation.

The court ordered the worker’s reinstatement, ruling the dismissal unjustified.

March 27, 2025
Dismissal for exceeding sick leave limits
Unlawful dismissal if employer fails to assess accommodations for a disabled worker
Court of Cassation, Labor Section

A disabled worker with cancer was dismissed for exceeding the maximum sick leave period after multiple absences.
The Court of Appeal rejected her claim, considering the dismissal lawful under the applicable collective agreement.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling, establishing a key principle of indirect discrimination:
Applying the standard sick leave rules neutrally can be discriminatory when the worker is disabled and more likely to need medical leave.

In such cases, the employer must assess whether the absences are related to the disability and whether reasonable accommodations could be provided.

This includes evaluating possible alternative arrangements — such as not counting absences due to the illness — as long as this does not pose an excessive burden on the employer.

Failure to assess reasonable accommodations renders the dismissal unlawful, as it is based on an apparently neutral rule that disproportionately disadvantages disabled workers.

The decision reaffirms the principle of substantive equality, emphasizing the employer’s duty to proactively assess and adapt work arrangements for disabled employees.