28 January 2026
Worker Monitoring
GPS on Waste Vehicles: When a Union Agreement Is Required and When It Is Not
INL
The National Labour Inspectorate (INL) has intervened following several queries regarding the installation of geolocation systems on vehicles used for the transport of hazardous waste, in the context of the new traceability system and the National Electronic Register for Waste Traceability (RENTRI).
In particular, it was asked whether such devices, mandated by special environmental regulations, could be considered work tools and therefore exempt from the safeguards provided for remote worker monitoring.
The Inspectorate clarified that the obligation to track vehicle routes, in cases established by special regulations, constitutes a condition for carrying out business activity. In this context, the installation of the GPS system falls outside the rules on remote monitoring, as the organisational or productive reasons typical of the general provision are not required.
However, the geolocation system cannot be classified as a tool strictly necessary for the performance of work, which could in principle be carried out even without it. Furthermore, the data collected must be used exclusively for the purposes set out in environmental regulations.
Should the company wish to use GPS for additional purposes — organisational, productive, asset protection, or occupational safety — it will be necessary to activate the procedural safeguards provided for remote monitoring.
24 February 2026
Privacy and Data Protection
Health Data and Strike Activity in Amazon’s Internal Notes: Privacy Authority Orders Stop
Garante Privacy
Following press reports, the Data Protection Authority (Garante) opened an investigation into Amazon, conducting inspection visits at one of its warehouses. The inspections revealed the use of a management platform which, integrated with the attendance tracking system, flagged to managers the need to conduct interviews with workers upon return from absence. Within the platform, in a free-text field, detailed notes were recorded on the outcomes of these interviews. The annotations contained data relating to medical conditions, health status, participation in strikes and trade union activities, as well as information on workers’ family and personal lives. Such data was retained for the entire duration of the employment relationship and for up to ten years after its termination, with access extended to multiple company profiles. During the same inspection, the Authority found cameras positioned near toilets and rest areas, capable of identifying individuals entering those spaces.
The Garante concluded that the collection and retention of information not relevant to the assessment of professional aptitude constitutes a breach of the principles of lawfulness, data minimisation, and storage limitation, and is also at odds with the prohibition on inquiries into matters irrelevant to the employment relationship. As an urgent measure, the Authority ordered the permanent restriction of processing with regard to both the annotations in the platform and the cameras installed near areas reserved for workers, with a verification obligation extended to all facilities using the same system.
26 February 2026
Health and Safety at Work
Contracts and Safety: Site Badges, Credit-Based Licences, and New Penalties
INL
In the circular under review, the National Labour Inspectorate sets out the main developments introduced by the recent health and safety decree, with significant implications for inspection activity and employer obligations. Particular attention is paid to contracts and subcontracts: inspection activity will be primarily directed at companies operating under subcontracting arrangements, including on the basis of information contained in preliminary notifications, which must now identify the subcontracting firms. On construction sites operating under contract or subcontract, the obligation to provide workers with an identification badge featuring a unique anti-counterfeiting code — also available in digital format — has been strengthened. Full operability of the new features remains subject to an implementing decree, but the penalty framework is already in place. Significant changes also concern the credit-based licence system: for undeclared work, a deduction of 5 credits per irregular worker is provided, with further reductions where aggravating circumstances apply. The minimum penalty for operating without a licence or with insufficient credits has also been raised to €12,000, in addition to temporary exclusion from public works contracts. The circular further addresses additional matters relating to training, protective equipment, ladder requirements, and digital reporting obligations for directors, outlining an overall strengthening of controls and corporate responsibilities.
20 January 2026
Employed and Self-Employed Work
Subordination: “Common Knowledge” Is Not Enough — Concrete Proof of Direction and Control Required
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A company had challenged the order by which the local Labour Inspectorate had enjoined payment of €52,650 in administrative penalties, in connection with 11 workers employed as stewards during an event.
Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had found employment relationships to exist, placing weight on statements made to inspectors, the workers’ integration into the event organisation, and the view that the activity, by its very nature, could not be carried out independently — treating this as a matter of common knowledge.
The Court of Cassation criticised this reasoning. The recourse to common knowledge — the Supreme Court clarified — is an exception to the principle of party disposition and must be limited to circumstances of general experience that are indisputable and beyond question. It cannot extend to assessments requiring specific technical or legal expertise.
In particular, it is not correct to assert as a general proposition that a given activity is necessarily subject to direction and control. Any economically relevant activity may be carried out either as employment or on a self-employed basis: what distinguishes the two is the worker’s subjection to the employer’s power of direction, which must be established on the specific facts.
Subordination, therefore, cannot be presumed on the basis of the type of duties performed, but must be the subject of specific proof as to the actual manner in which the work was carried out.
9 January 2026
Industrial Relations
Trade Union Criticism on Television: Legitimate, Even If Forceful, But Must Not Damage the Organisation’s Reputation
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from statements made by a trade union official, employed by a public agency, during a television programme dealing with a selection procedure that was the subject of investigations and litigation. Following the interview, the employer initiated disciplinary proceedings on the grounds that the worker’s statements — concerning alleged irregularities and a system designed to penalise small taxpayers to the advantage of major tax evaders — had exceeded the limits of the right to criticism.
The worker brought a claim for anti-union conduct, arguing that the proceedings were retaliatory. The lower courts rejected the anti-union characterisation and upheld the disciplinary sanction.
The Supreme Court confirmed this approach, reaffirming that the expression of opinions, even in a trade union context and on matters of public interest, is subject to the limit of substantive restraint. It is not sufficient to invoke trade union freedom or the media context to justify statements that attribute specific facts damaging to the organisation’s reputation, particularly where those facts lack adequate factual basis.
The right to criticism may be forceful and may concern organisational or management choices, but it cannot take the form of sweeping or defamatory assertions capable of undermining the relationship of trust. In such cases, the employer’s disciplinary response does not, in itself, constitute anti-union conduct.
25 February 2026
Business Travel and Transfer
Worker Transfer: When a Change of Location Does Not Require Specific Organisational Reasons
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker challenged the decision by which the employing company had moved her from the operational premises at a client company’s site to the employer’s own offices. At first instance the claim was dismissed, while the Court of Appeal classified the decision as a full transfer and annulled it for lack of proven technical, organisational, and productive reasons.
The Supreme Court, ruling on the company’s appeal, clarified that the concept of transfer presupposes not only a permanent change in the place where work is performed, but also a move from one productive unit to another. It follows that a simple change of work location, where it does not affect the worker’s assignment to a different autonomous unit within the company’s organisational structure, does not constitute the typical case requiring the demonstration of specific organisational needs.
The ruling also reaffirms that judicial review of the reasons underpinning the employer’s decision must be limited to verifying their genuineness and their connection to the company’s objectives, without extending to the merits of business decisions. In this light, situations of interpersonal incompatibility capable of causing organisational disruption may also justify the relocation of a worker, independently of any finding of fault on the worker’s part.
2 March 2026
Dismissal for Just Cause
Disciplinary Dismissal and Criminal Proceedings: Lawful Termination Even Where the Facts Are Differently Characterised
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker challenged the disciplinary dismissal imposed by the employing administration following proceedings that had been suspended pending the outcome of parallel criminal proceedings. At first instance the dismissal was declared unlawful on the ground of an alleged discrepancy between the facts originally charged and those relied upon in the final decision. The Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, finding substantive continuity between the omissive conduct originally charged and the conduct subsequently established.
The Supreme Court confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal, clarifying that the disciplinary charge must be specific as to the material facts but does not require a perfect correspondence with the legal characterisation attributed to them. Reference to the acts of criminal proceedings is therefore permissible where these were already known to the worker, and the administration may base its assessment on the elements that emerged in those proceedings without conducting a fresh independent investigation.
It remains settled that the principle of immutability of the disciplinary charge concerns the factual core of the allegation and does not prevent the court from re-characterising the conduct under a different disciplinary provision. The omissive conduct — consisting in the failure to prevent or report serious irregularities despite awareness of them — was found capable of irreparably damaging the relationship of trust and justifying dismissal for just cause.
