6 February 2026
Industrial Relations
Trade Union Leave: A Potestative Right — Dismissal for Absence Unlawful
Turin Court of Appeal
A worker was dismissed for unjustified absence of several days after having requested a period of trade union leave. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the legitimacy of the absence unproven and the dismissal proportionate.
The Court of Appeal, hearing the case on appeal, overturned the decision. The judges established that the worker held a national-level trade union position within a recently established association and had genuinely carried out trade union activity.
The Court reaffirmed that the right to trade union leave constitutes a potestative right: it does not require the signing of the collective agreement applied in the company, nor any particular representativeness requirements on the part of the organisation. It is sufficient that the worker holds a trade union position and carries out actual activity.
The burden of proving in detail the activities carried out during the days of absence does not fall on the worker; rather, it is for the employer to demonstrate any improper use of the entitlement. In the absence of such proof, the absence cannot be characterised as unjustified.
Having established that the alleged conduct was not made out, the Court declared the dismissal unlawful and ordered the reinstatement of the worker, condemning the company to pay compensation equivalent to twelve monthly salaries, plus social security contributions.
26 February 2026
Pay and Benefits
Superminimum and Company Practice: Cassation Refers Case to Clarify the Limits of Absorption
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
Several workers had brought proceedings against their employer to obtain the reinstatement of a pay element previously recognised in their payslips and subsequently absorbed following contractual changes. The Tribunal had declared the absorptions unlawful, ordering the company to restore the emolument and repay the withheld amounts. The Court of Appeal had confirmed the decision, dismissing the company’s appeal.
Hearing the further appeal, the Supreme Court was called upon to rule on central issues concerning superminimum pay, company practice, and unilateral withdrawal by the employer. In particular, the company argued that the absorption was lawful, denied the existence of a binding company practice, and claimed the right to withdraw from previously adopted arrangements.
The Court of Cassation, without ruling on the merits, considered that the issues raised have potential significance for the uniform interpretation of the law, particularly regarding the relationship between individual superminimum pay, the employer’s conclusive conduct, and the limits on withdrawing from an established company practice. For this reason, it ordered the case to be relisted for hearing in open court.
The ruling signals the Court’s attention to a frequently litigated issue: when a repeatedly paid emolument may consolidate into a company practice, and what scope consequently remains for its absorption or unilateral withdrawal by the employer.
12 February 2026
Settlement, Conciliation, and Consensual Termination
Exit Incentive and Worker’s Fraud: Agreement Voidable Where Silence Distorts the Terms
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case originated from an action brought by a bank which, having entered into a consensual termination agreement with an exit incentive, sought to have the agreement annulled and to recover €193,000 paid as an incentive.
The company complained that the worker had concealed the existence of pending criminal proceedings relating to his employment, a circumstance which, had it been known, would have affected the terms of the agreement or prevented it from being concluded. The lower courts had dismissed the claim, finding that the omission was not capable of invalidating the agreement, also in light of the shared intention to terminate the employment relationship.
The Supreme Court upheld the company’s appeal, clarifying that a worker’s silence on a relevant circumstance may constitute incidental fraud where it is capable of distorting the correct determination of the contractual terms. In such cases, even though the intention to terminate the relationship remains intact, the agreement may be annulled with a consequent right to compensation or repayment of amounts unduly received.
The ruling reaffirms that, in negotiations for the termination of employment, the parties are subject to a duty of good faith and transparency: reticence on significant matters may affect the economic validity of the agreement, even where the decision to bring the employment relationship to an end is not in question.
27 February 2026
Severance Pay, Notice, and Other Termination Indemnities
TFR Guarantee Fund: Insolvency of the Employer at the Time of Termination Is Decisive Following Business Retrocession
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker brought proceedings to obtain payment of his severance pay (TFR) from the Guarantee Fund, following the termination of his employment by dismissal served by the insolvency administrator of the employing company. The case had been preceded by the leasing of the business to a different entity and the subsequent retrocession of the employment relationships to the company that later became insolvent. At first instance the claim was dismissed, while the appellate court recognised the worker’s entitlement to the social security benefit.
The Supreme Court confirmed this outcome, reaffirming that, for the purposes of the Fund’s intervention, what is decisive is the identification of the insolvent employer at the time of termination of the employment relationship, when the claim becomes enforceable. Where the employment ends with the retrocessionary entity that subsequently becomes insolvent, it is the latter that must be regarded as the current insolvent employer, with the public guarantee consequently applying.
The ruling also underlines the autonomous nature of the worker’s right to the Fund’s benefit as against the claim held against the employer, excluding the possibility of joint and several liability with any solvent transferee in the context of a business transfer.
3 March 2026
Dismissal for Supervening Incapacity
Dismissal for Supervening Incapacity: The Duty to Explore Redeployment Falls on the Employer Across the Entire Organisation
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker challenged his dismissal on grounds of supervening incapacity to perform his duties, arising from an allergic condition that had developed in the course of his employment. Both the first-instance and appellate courts had found the dismissal lawful, placing weight on the worker’s failure to challenge the occupational physician’s assessment in good time and considering the employer’s duty to explore possible redeployment as having been discharged.
The Supreme Court, in quashing the decision, reaffirmed that in cases of supervening impossibility of performance, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate not only the worker’s incapacity but also the impossibility of assigning him to equivalent or lower-grade duties compatible with his health conditions. This assessment must cover the entire organisational structure of the company and cannot be regarded as satisfied on the basis of evaluations limited to individual productive units or the mere subsequent use of fixed-term contracts.
The Court also clarified that challenging the finding of incapacity constitutes a purely procedural defence and is not precluded by the failure to bring an administrative challenge against the medical assessment. It follows that the court is in any event required to ascertain in concrete terms whether the conditions for objective justified dismissal are met, verifying whether the employer has genuinely discharged its burden of proof.
20 January 2026
Dismissal for Poor Performance
Poor Performance and Simulated Illness: Dismissal Lawful Where the Absence Is Attributable to the Worker
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker challenged her dismissal for poor performance, which the company attributed to repeated absences on grounds of illness that proved to be unfounded. At first instance the claim was upheld, while the appellate court, overturning that decision, confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal. The case then came before the Supreme Court.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed that poor performance as a ground for termination requires the coexistence of an objective element — a level of output below the applicable standard — and a subjective element, namely that the conduct is attributable to the worker. In this light, reductions in performance arising from genuine illness cannot be relied upon as grounds for dismissal.
Where, however, the absence is found to be simulated or otherwise attributable to the worker’s fault, it may constitute a relevant breach of obligation and contribute to a finding of poor performance. The assessment of the genuineness of the medical condition and the presence of the subjective element is a matter for the lower courts and is not reviewable at the level of legitimacy where adequately reasoned.
16 January 2026
Incentives
Tax Relief on Low Incomes: Only Remunerated Days Count for the Calculation
Revenue Agency
An employer, acting as withholding agent, requested clarification on the correct determination of the amount to be recognised to low-income employees in cases where the employment relationship was characterised by periods of unpaid absence or, indeed, by a complete absence of working days in the year.
The question arose from the need to identify precisely the “days of employment” to be used in determining the theoretical annual income, the parameter required to establish the percentage of the benefit due.
The Revenue Agency clarified that, for the purposes of the calculation, only the days for which the worker actually received remuneration are to be taken into account. Periods of unpaid leave, suspension of activity without payment, or other absences without economic treatment are therefore excluded.
Furthermore, where no working days occurred during the year and only amounts relating to entitlements accrued in other periods were paid, the relief cannot apply.
The clarification has practical significance for employers required to carry out the necessary checks on entitlement to the benefit and to calculate its amount correctly, including in cases of discontinuous employment or employment characterised by suspensions of work.
