June 5, 2025
Social security benefits
NASpI: new contribution requirement for those resigning from open-ended employment within 12 months prior to unemployment
INPS
Recent changes concerning NASpI unemployment benefits introduce, as of 2025, a new requirement for workers who voluntarily terminated an open-ended employment relationship within the twelve months preceding involuntary job loss. In such cases, workers may access NASpI only if, between the voluntary termination and the new involuntary unemployment event, they accrued at least thirteen weeks of contributions.
Exclusions from this new rule include resignations for just cause, resignations during maternity or paternity protected periods, and consensual terminations formalized through protected conciliation procedures. Moreover, this new requirement applies regardless of the type of contract—whether fixed-term or open-ended—under which the subsequent involuntary termination occurred.
For purposes of calculating the thirteen weeks, all remunerated weeks are counted, as well as credited contributions for mandatory maternity leave and certain periods of parental leave, in addition to specific periods of work abroad or leave for a child’s illness. This rule does not affect the amount or duration of the benefit, which remain governed by existing regulations.
June 9, 2025
Executives
A critical executive cannot be dismissed merely for being critical of the company’s project
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A banking executive tasked with an internal restructuring project was dismissed after raising concerns about operational issues and resistance to change. Both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal declared the dismissal null and void, as it was determined to be based on an unlawful reason—a retaliatory reaction by the company to his reports. The Supreme Court, hearing the case, upheld the lower courts’ rulings. Specifically, the Court reiterated that retaliatory dismissal, i.e., dismissal motivated by a punitive intent in response to lawful conduct by the employee, is null under Article 18(1) of the Workers’ Statute and Article 1345 of the Civil Code.
The employer attempted to justify the dismissal by providing an alternative interpretation of the facts, but the judges found this unconvincing and lacking concrete evidence. Retaliatory dismissal thus remains one of the typical cases of nullity due to an unlawful determining reason.
June 4, 2025
Settlement, conciliation, consensual termination
Without validation, consensual termination remains suspended: Supreme Court clarification
Supreme Court
A journalist sought a ruling from the court confirming the continuation of her employment relationship with a company, despite the counterparty’s assertion that an implied consensual termination had been perfected. The lower courts dismissed the claim, holding that the termination was not subject to the validation requirement, which they believed applied only to resignations.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that consensual termination of an employment contract, even if tacit, remains provisionally ineffective until validated as prescribed by law. Lack of validation does not void the agreement but renders it inactive, suspending its effects until formalized. The decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards protecting workers and extends the validation requirement to consensual termination agreements.
June 9, 2025
Dismissal during probationary period
Probationary clause valid even if it merely refers to the professional profile in the applicable national collective agreement (CCNL)
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker challenged her dismissal for failure to pass the probationary period, contesting the validity of the probationary clause due to an alleged lack of specificity regarding her duties. The lower courts dismissed her claim, deeming sufficient the reference to the professional profile set out in the collective agreement, as it was detailed and known to both parties.
The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, reiterating that a probationary clause is valid if it specifically identifies the duties, even by reference to external sources such as the collective agreement, provided these sources define precise duties rather than a generic job category. This principle is significant for employment contract drafting, allowing reliance on detailed collective contractual profiles, thereby preventing invalidity of the probationary clause and disputes over the legitimacy of termination during the probationary period.
June 3, 2025
Collective dismissal
No obligation of repêchage in collective dismissal procedures
Court of Cosenza
A worker affected by a collective dismissal procedure challenged the termination as unlawful. She argued that the employer had violated rules on employee selection criteria, failed to assess alternatives to dismissal, and engaged in indirect gender discrimination, as evidenced by the proportion of women among those dismissed.
The employer, in contrast, emphasized the correctness of the process adopted, which was based on a trade union agreement and driven by an organizational and production crisis necessitating staff reductions. The court rejected the worker’s claims, noting that employers are not obliged to adopt a territoriality criterion and may limit the selection scope to a specific site; likewise, there is no obligation of repêchage (reassignment) in collective dismissals, as such an obligation pertains exclusively to individual dismissals for objective reasons.
The judge also held that minor errors in ranking scores do not invalidate the entire procedure and ruled out the existence of discrimination. The claim was therefore entirely dismissed.
June 11, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Sexual harassment at work: suspension lawful even if the worker has an unblemished record
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker challenged an eight-day suspension imposed for verbally harassing a colleague with sexually explicit comments. The Court of Appeal upheld the sanction, finding the witness statements credible and consistent with the allegations.
The Supreme Court confirmed this decision, dismissing all grounds of appeal. In particular, the Court found irrelevant the absence of details such as the precise time of the incidents or the names of all colleagues present, as the conduct was sufficiently well-defined.
The Court also reiterated that charges of sexual harassment, when supported by consistent and detailed evidence, justify the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, even where the worker previously had an unblemished career.
Regarding the principle of proportionality, the Court clarified that this is a matter of fact reserved to the appellate court and not subject to review by the Supreme Court if supported by logical and coherent reasoning.
Finally, no violation was found with respect to the principle of immutability of charges: the Court ruled that there had been no expansion of the disciplinary charge but rather a consistency check between the allegations and the evidence.
May 29, 2025
Dismissal for economic reasons
Workplace incompatibility justifies dismissal but only if it is objective, current and not otherwise resolvable
Court of Treviso
A worker was dismissed for justified objective reasons following a corporate reorganization that involved outsourcing her duties and was also motivated by serious and persistent workplace incompatibility. The employer asserted that the worker’s behavior had created such tension and dysfunction that her continued presence had become untenable.
The worker challenged the dismissal as retaliatory and discriminatory, seeking reinstatement. The Court of Treviso rejected these allegations for lack of evidence but upheld her claim that there was no legitimate objective justification for the dismissal, awarding her compensatory protection.
According to the court, workplace incompatibility may in principle constitute a justified objective reason for dismissal only if precise conditions are met: the organizational dysfunctions caused by the incompatibility must be demonstrated, current, and not avoidable by alternative solutions such as reassignment (repêchage). In the specific case, the court found the employer’s explanations to be vague and unsubstantiated.
