15 December 2025
Working hours, holidays, leave
Untaken annual leave: compensation is also due to executives if the employer does not prove that leave was actually allowed
Supreme Court (Cassation), Labour Section

An executive brought proceedings seeking payment of the indemnity in lieu of untaken annual leave, along with other financial claims, against a company in liquidation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, holding that, given the executive’s senior position, he had full autonomy in scheduling his own holidays and that, in the absence of unforeseeable business needs, he could not claim monetisation of the leave not taken.

The Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the appeal, clarifying that the right to paid annual leave — and the related indemnity in lieu where leave is not taken — constitutes a fundamental right of the worker, including executives. It is the employer’s burden to prove that it actually enabled the employee to take leave, by formally inviting the employee to do so and informing them of the consequences of failing to take it.

Loss of the right to leave or to the related indemnity can occur only if the employer proves that it fulfilled these obligations and that the employee, with full awareness, chose to forgo the period of rest. The burden of proof therefore lies with the company, which must ensure a genuine opportunity to take annual leave.

This principle also applies to executives, for whom it cannot be presumed that their position of autonomy automatically entails a waiver of the right to annual rest or the related indemnity.

6 November 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Disciplinary dismissal: where the conduct is sanctioned by the collective agreement with a conservative penalty, reinstatement applies
Supreme Court (Cassation), Labour Section

An employee challenged a disciplinary dismissal imposed for breaching an internal practice concerning the recording of product temperature checks.

Both the Labour Tribunal and the Rome Court of Appeal found the dismissal unlawful but applied only the compensatory protection provided for under Article 18(5) of the Workers’ Statute, excluding reinstatement.

The employee appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the contested conduct fell within the infringements punishable by a conservative sanction under the collective agreement for the Tourism and Public Catering sector.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, reaffirming a well-established principle: where a collective bargaining agreement provides a conservative sanction for a specific type of conduct, dismissal for that same conduct is unlawful and the court must order reinstatement. The judge may not depart from the assessment of seriousness already made by the social partners in the disciplinary scale, unless a concrete greater gravity of the facts is established.

The Supreme Court therefore quashed the appellate judgment and remitted the case for re-examination in light of the principle that dismissal is null where the conduct falls among those punished by the collective agreement with a conservative measure.

2 December 2025
Foreign nationals – Immigration
Simplifications in employment, immigration and personnel management: new provisions under Law No. 182/2025

Law No. 182 of 2 December 2025 introduces measures aimed at administrative and managerial simplification, including in the field of employment and personnel administration.

From a labour-law perspective, Legislative Decree No. 148/2015 is amended to introduce a new notification obligation for workers receiving wage supplementation benefits. An employee on wage support who undertakes another employment activity must now promptly inform both the employer and INPS. The measure aims to prevent improper overlap of income and to ensure the correctness of contribution and wage flows.

The Law also amends the Consolidated Immigration Act (Legislative Decree No. 286/1998), reducing from ninety to thirty days the maximum time limit for issuing work authorisations for highly qualified workers.

Finally, the power to issue work authorisations is extended to territorial offices of the competent authorities, promoting administrative proximity and faster procedures.

17 November 2025
Severance pay (TFR), notice and other termination indemnities
TFR: the Supreme Court reiterates the principle of the all-inclusive nature of remuneration
Supreme Court (Cassation), Labour Section

Several employees brought proceedings seeking recalculation of their severance pay (TFR), arguing that the calculation base should include various payments received on a regular basis — including supplementary work, recall to service, shift allowances and travel allowances not reimbursed as expenses.

The Rome Labour Tribunal partially upheld the claims, recognising the remunerative nature of these items. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, excluding their inclusion in the TFR, holding that the applicable collective agreement (Motorways and Tunnels CCNL) expressly limited the items to be included.

The Supreme Court annulled the appellate judgment, reaffirming that, unless expressly and unequivocally provided otherwise by collective bargaining, remuneration relevant for TFR purposes includes all sums paid on a non-occasional basis and as consideration for the work performed. The Court clarified that it is for the employer to prove the existence of a collective clause excluding specific payments from the calculation base.

The case was therefore remitted to the Rome Court of Appeal to reassess whether the payments claimed by the employees were paid on a continuous basis and not merely as expense reimbursements.

10 December 2025
Remuneration and benefits
Adequate pay and collective agreement: the actual sector of the contract matters
Supreme Court (Cassation), Labour Section

A worker-member of a cooperative, engaged in hanging chickens and turkeys for a contracting company in the agri-food sector, challenged the remuneration received, arguing that the company had applied a collective agreement (freight transport and logistics) inconsistent with the duties performed and contrary to the constitutional principle of proportionate and sufficient pay. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, considering the application of the logistics sector agreement lawful.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, stating that remuneration must be assessed in relation to the quality and quantity of the work actually performed, with reference to the collective agreement of the economic sector to which the activity truly belongs. In the present case, hanging activities — closely connected to the slaughtering process and therefore to food processing — do not fall within the logistics sector but within the agri-food sector.

Accordingly, for the purposes of verifying compliance with Article 36 of the Constitution and Article 3 of Law No. 142/2001, the judge must compare the treatments provided for by the applied collective agreement and by the relevant sector agreement to determine whether pay is actually adequate. The Court also reiterated that the burden of proving compliance with constitutional principles rests with the employer, not the worker, and that limitation periods for wage claims run only from termination of the employment relationship, including for cooperative members.

15 December 2025
Employment contract – ancillary agreements
Non-compete covenant void: the compensation paid becomes part of remuneration
Supreme Court (Cassation), Labour Section

An employee had entered into a non-compete agreement with the company at the time of hiring, providing for the payment of a monthly sum of ITL 200,000 (EUR 103.29). This amount, paid throughout the employment relationship, was shown on the payslip as a fixed item of remuneration.

Both the Labour Tribunal and, on appeal, the Milan Court of Appeal found the covenant void for lack of the statutory validity requirements, but classified the sums paid as a component of remuneration, recognising their nature as consideration for work performed.

The company appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the amount constituted an autonomous payment linked to the post-contractual non-compete obligation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court’s decision. According to the Court, where a non-compete agreement is declared void, sums paid on that basis cannot be reclaimed, as they are deemed to have been acquired by the employee as remuneration.

The ruling reiterates that the classification of a payment as remuneration depends on its actual connection to the employment activity and its regular inclusion in payslips: in the absence of a valid non-compete agreement, the amount paid becomes remuneration for all legal purposes.

14 November 2025
Part-time work
Flexible clause void in the absence of a specific written agreement on working hours
Genoa Labour Tribunal

A part-time employee working at a retail outlet complained that working hours were communicated on a week-by-week basis, sometimes even the day before, without notice and with continuous changes. Although he had signed a part-time contract upon a company transfer, he had never agreed in writing to any flexibility or elasticity clause, despite receiving a monthly allowance of EUR 10 as compensation for such availability.

The Genoa Labour Tribunal upheld the claim, declaring the flexible clause applied to the employment relationship void due to the absence of the statutory requirements: a written agreement and a precise indication of the methods and limits within which the employer may vary the timing of work. According to the Court, failure to formalise these elements results in partial nullity of the clause and entitles the employee to compensation for damages, assessed equitably at 10% of the remuneration received during the relevant period.

The judgment reiterates that flexibility of working hours in part-time employment is permitted only if balanced by effective safeguards for the employee, protecting their ability to plan their private and family life.