14 February 2026
Equal opportunities – Discrimination
Equal pay: draft legislative decree to implement new rules on transparency, reporting, and gaps above 5%

The Council of Ministers has given preliminary approval to a draft legislative decree implementing the European directive on equal pay between men and women, introducing stringent obligations for both public and private employers.

The measure operates on several levels. During recruitment, companies will be required to indicate the starting salary or the relevant pay range in job postings and will be prohibited from asking candidates about remuneration received in previous employment.

During employment, workers will have the right to know the criteria used to determine pay and salary progression, as well as—upon request—the average remuneration levels, broken down by gender, for categories performing the same work or work of equal value.

Companies with at least 100 employees will be subject to periodic reporting obligations regarding the gender pay gap. If a difference of 5% or more emerges and cannot be justified by objective and gender-neutral criteria, the employer must initiate a joint assessment with workers’ representatives and adopt corrective measures.

The rules also strengthen the principle that job classification and grading systems must be based on objective, gender-neutral criteria, enhancing the role of collective bargaining.

The organizational impact will be significant, particularly for larger companies, which will need to establish systems for data collection, monitoring, and internal transparency. It is therefore advisable to begin the necessary procedural adjustments in good time.

18 December 2025
Confidentiality and Privacy
Email accounts after dismissal: automatic forwarding must stop and the worker must receive a response
Data Protection Authority

A manager, after receiving a disciplinary charge and subsequent dismissal, discovered that his individual corporate email account had remained active even after the termination of the employment relationship. The account, in addition to receiving new communications, was subject to automatic forwarding to other corporate email addresses. The employee therefore submitted a request seeking deactivation of the account, access to the correspondence received in the meantime, and activation of an automatic reply system indicating an alternative contact. The company failed to respond.

The Data Protection Authority held that the failure to respond to the access request was unlawful, clarifying that the employer must reply within one month even where it considers that it cannot grant the request. Nor may the employer limit access to personal emails only, since work-related correspondence on an individual account also involves data attributable to the employee.

The Authority reiterated that, for business continuity purposes, it is permissible to promptly deactivate the email account following termination, with the simultaneous activation of an automatic reply directing third parties to alternative contacts; however, maintaining the account with systematic forwarding of emails to other internal addresses is not allowed. Such conduct violates the principles of lawfulness, data minimisation and storage limitation.

The decision calls on companies to review internal policies and IT procedures to ensure that the management of corporate tools upon termination complies with the principles of proportionality and protection of the worker’s privacy.

25 December 2025
Dismissal during probation
Termination during probation: actual work performed counts, not the mere passage of time
Supreme Court, Labour Section

An employee challenged the dismissal served for failure to pass the probationary period, claiming it was unlawful. The Tribunal rejected the claim and the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision, holding that, for the purposes of lawful termination, it was sufficient that more than half of the overall probationary period provided by the collective agreement had elapsed.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court. The employee argued that he had not actually completed the minimum probationary period in terms of effective activity, since the employment relationship had been suspended for numerous absences due to illness, as well as holidays and public holidays.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, reiterating that the purpose of the probationary clause is to allow both parties to assess the mutual convenience of the employment relationship. Consequently, the right of withdrawal must be exercised consistently with that purpose.

The mere passage of time from the date of hiring is therefore not sufficient: it must be verified that the probation was effectively carried out for the minimum period required. Suspensions of the employment relationship, affecting the concrete possibility of assessing the employee’s abilities, must be taken into account in the calculation.

The Court therefore quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal to ascertain whether, at the time of termination, the employee had actually completed the minimum probationary period in terms of effective work activity.

20 January 2026
Agency agreement
Agency: non-compete clause valid even without specific consideration, but disguised “star del credere” clause is void
Supreme Court, Labour Section

An agent brought proceedings against the company seeking end-of-contract indemnities and remuneration for collection activities, challenging the lawfulness of the termination and the validity of certain contractual clauses. The company, for its part, alleged just cause due to breach of the non-compete clause and sought damages, as well as payment of sums connected with the transfer of goods to the agent.

The lower courts held the termination lawful, identifying even a potential competitive activity due to overlap of clientele and similarity of products, but denied additional remuneration for collection activities, as this had been provided for in the contract from the outset. The post-contractual non-compete clause was also deemed valid, despite the absence of specific consideration.

The Supreme Court confirmed that a non-compete clause following termination of an agency relationship may validly be agreed even without the provision of separate compensation, as such an element is not required on pain of nullity. The parties are therefore free to regulate the onerous nature of the commitment within the overall economic framework of the relationship.

Conversely, a clause is void where, under the guise of transferring goods in lieu of commissions, the risk of clients’ default is generally shifted onto the agent. Such a provision constitutes fraud against the law, as it alters the typical cause of the agency contract and circumvents the prohibition against permanently placing the risk of non-payment on the agent.

20 January 2026
Duties and demotion
Demotion: damage may be proven by presumptions and assessed on an equitable basis
Supreme Court, Labour Section

An employee, classified as a senior manager and formerly head of a territorial office, brought proceedings claiming that he had gradually been assigned duties lacking managerial and decision-making content. He sought a declaration of demotion, reinstatement to his previous duties and compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

The Tribunal partially upheld the claim; the Court of Appeal redefined the period of dequalification while confirming the award of damages. The company appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating that the assessment of equivalence of duties must be carried out in concrete terms, with reference to the skills acquired and the professional level attained by the employee. A mere reference to the job classification level is insufficient: it must be ascertained whether the new duties safeguard autonomy, responsibility and professional content.

As regards damage, the Court confirmed that it may also be inferred on a presumptive basis, taking into account factors such as the duration of the demotion, the loss of decision-making and coordination powers, the impoverishment of professional skills and the impact on career prospects. In the presence of such indicators, equitable assessment is legitimate, even calculated as a percentage of the monthly salary for the established period.

30 January 2026
Personnel administration
2026 contributions: daily minimum, contribution ceiling and new thresholds for fringe benefits set
INPS

INPS has announced the updated values for 2026 of the remuneration limits relevant for calculating social security and welfare contributions due for the generality of employees.

The minimum daily remuneration has been set at €58.13, equal to 9.5% of the minimum monthly pension treatment, fixed at €611.85. Contributions may not therefore be calculated on taxable amounts below this threshold, without prejudice to compliance with the minimum levels provided for by the most representative collective bargaining agreements.

For part-time employment relationships, the hourly minimum, assuming 40 hours per week, is €8.72; for a 36-hour week, €8.07.

The first annual pensionable remuneration band is set at €56,224.00: on amounts exceeding this threshold, an additional 1% contribution is applied at the employee’s expense. The annual ceiling of the contribution and pensionable base, for the relevant categories, is €122,295.00.

There are also relevant updates regarding fringe benefits: the exemption threshold remains at €1,000, increased to €2,000 for employees with dependent children, as well as clarifications concerning travel expense reimbursements, which are subject to traceable payment methods.

5 February 2026
Personnel administration
Treasury Fund: new size thresholds and extended obligation from 2026
INPS

With the 2026 Budget Law, the legislature amended the rules governing the Treasury Fund, modifying the criteria for triggering the obligation to pay over accrued severance pay (TFR). In its circular, INPS provides the first operational guidance.

The main innovation concerns the abandonment of the exclusive reference to the workforce size in the first year of activity. From 1 January 2026, employers who reach the size threshold in subsequent years will also be subject to the payment obligation, taking as a parameter the annual average number of employees in service during the previous calendar year.

Upon initial application, for the two-year period 2026–2027, the obligation arises when an average of at least 60 employees is reached; from 2028 to 2031, the ordinary threshold of 50 employees applies; from 1 January 2032, the limit is reduced to 40 employees.

It remains the case that payment to the Fund concerns employees who have not allocated their TFR to supplementary pension schemes. The size requirement must be verified annually, with effects from the subsequent payroll period, and any subsequent workforce reductions do not affect an obligation already accrued.

The circular also provides instructions on calculating the monthly instalment, payment methods and the management of arrears, with specific guidance for newly established companies and corporate transactions.