18 March 2026
Equal Opportunities – Discrimination
Carer of a Disabled Child: Revocation of Compatible Working Hours Constitutes Discrimination
Tribunal of Treviso
A worker who was the primary carer of her minor child with a severe disability had benefited for over a year from a continuous working schedule that allowed her to reconcile her professional activity with her caring responsibilities. Following a lengthy period of leave taken to assist her child, who had been diagnosed with a serious condition, she returned to work only to find herself assigned a split shift, placed on the FIS (Fondo di Integrazione Salariale, Wage Integration Fund) scheme at zero hours for several months, and subject to an overall deterioration in her working conditions. The worker brought proceedings before the court, asserting the discriminatory nature of the company’s decisions.
The Tribunal upheld the claim, finding that the new organisational arrangements placed a particularly burdensome constraint on her ability to provide care for her disabled child. According to the court, where an employer worsens conditions that have for a long time allowed a worker to balance work and family care, it must demonstrate the existence of genuine and concrete organisational requirements. In the absence of such evidence, the measure may constitute a form of indirect discrimination, even where no discriminatory intent is present.
The ruling confirms that in disputes concerning the protection of carers, the concrete effects of the company’s choices are the decisive factor. The Tribunal accordingly ordered the reinstatement of the previously recognised working schedule and awarded the worker compensation for both the patrimonial and non-patrimonial damages suffered.
4 May 2026
Duties and Demotion
Supervening Incapacity: Demotion Is Unlawful Where the Employer Fails to Prove the Absence of Equivalent Duties
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker who had been declared not fully fit to perform his previous duties on health grounds was transferred to a role belonging to a lower classification level. Considering himself to have been demoted and subjected to a series of harassing conduct, he brought proceedings to obtain recognition of the damages suffered. After his claims were dismissed at first instance, the Court of Appeal found demotion and workplace harassment (mobbing) to be established, ordering the company both to pay compensation and to reassign the worker to duties consistent with his contractual classification level. The company then appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the lower court, reaffirming a principle of particular importance: where a worker becomes unfit for his original duties due to supervening health conditions, the employer must first verify the possibility of assigning him to compatible duties of equivalent professional classification. Only where such a solution is genuinely impossible may the worker be assigned to lower-grade duties.
The burden of proving the impossibility of deploying the worker in equivalent activities rests on the employer. In the absence of such proof, assignment to a lower-grade role constitutes unlawful demotion, entitling the worker to compensation for the damage arising from the impairment of his professional standing and, where the relevant conditions are met, for health-related damages as well.
29 March 2026
Monitoring of Workers
Technological Monitoring of Employees: Only Data Collected After Suspicion of Misconduct May Be Used
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from proceedings brought by a company against a number of workers, who were alleged to have engaged in conduct harmful to the company’s interests. In support of its damages claims, the employer had produced recordings and data obtained through technological instruments. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal had excluded the admissibility of that evidence, finding that it had been collected in breach of the rules governing the monitoring of workers.
The Court of Cassation confirmed that conclusion, reaffirming a now well-established principle in the field of defensive monitoring. Technological controls aimed at ascertaining specific unlawful conduct on the part of a worker are permissible even outside the procedures ordinarily required for remote monitoring, but only where they are targeted, initiated after a well-founded suspicion has arisen, and confined to verifying the alleged misconduct.
According to the Supreme Court, the employer may therefore use information collected only from the point at which concrete suspicion of unlawful conduct emerges. Data gathered prior to that point may not be used, as this would unduly expand the scope of permissible defensive monitoring. The ruling confirms that the lawfulness of monitoring activity depends not only on its purposes, but also on the point in time at which it is commenced and the manner in which the information is collected.
29 April 2026
Personnel Administration
Workplace Injuries: New INAIL Instructions on Return to Work, Prognosis, and Certification
INAIL
INAIL has issued new operational instructions on the management of medical certificates relating to workplace injuries, addressing certain practical aspects that directly affect the resumption of work and the associated administrative obligations.
The circular clarifies, in the first place, that medical certificates transmitted electronically to the Institute may be assigned various operational designations, but that such designations do not alter the legal status of the certificate or impose additional obligations. Their function is purely organisational.
Among the most significant aspects, it is clarified that a worker may return to work upon the expiry of the last prognosis period notified to INAIL, without the need to obtain a further “final” medical certificate. Only in specific circumstances will the Institute issue an additional medico-legal certificate, including by means of telemedicine.
A different regime applies to early return to work: in such cases, resumption is possible only if a doctor modifies the original prognosis by bringing forward its conclusion. The new instructions also apply to occupational diseases and are intended to harmonise procedures and simplify the administrative management of periods of absence.
28 April 2026
Dismissal for Exceeding the Sick Leave Entitlement Period
Sick Leave Period and Disability: No Discriminatory Dismissal Where the Employer Is Unaware of the Condition
Tribunal of Bologna
A worker challenged the dismissal served on her for exceeding the sick leave entitlement period (periodo di comporto), arguing that the termination was discriminatory in nature. She maintained that a large proportion of her absences were attributable to a long-term condition equivalent to a disability, of which the company had been informed, and further complained that she had not been warned of the imminent exhaustion of the sick leave period.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim. The court recalled that dismissal for exceeding the sick leave period may be discriminatory where the worker’s disability leads to a higher rate of illness and the employer fails to adopt reasonable organisational adjustments. However, for that obligation to arise, the company must have sufficiently certain knowledge of the condition and of its concrete impact on the worker’s capacity to work.
In the case under examination, the communications received by the company were found to be generic and insufficiently supported by documentary evidence. The witness evidence, moreover, did not establish that the employer had been genuinely informed of the worker’s specific condition. The ruling reaffirms that the protection against discrimination presupposes clear awareness of the worker’s health situation on the part of the company. The Tribunal further confirmed that, absent specific contractual provisions, the employer is not obliged to warn the worker of the imminent expiry of the sick leave period.
30 March 2026
Industrial Relations
Exclusive Bargaining with a Single Trade Union: Anti-Union Conduct Even Where the Events Are Historical
Tribunal of Chieti
The dispute arose from a claim brought by a trade union that complained of having been excluded from negotiations concerning a company agreement already being applied by the employer, as well as from subsequent discussions on matters of significance to workers. The union also reported a series of conduct it considered discriminatory, including failure to involve it in trade union meetings, irregularities in the remittance of trade union deductions, and matters concerning one of its workplace representatives.
The Tribunal upheld the claim, reaffirming that anti-union conduct may be established even where the individual episodes have already concluded, provided their effects continue to impinge upon trade union activity. What is relevant is the persistence of employer conduct capable of limiting the freedom and bargaining capacity of the trade union organisation.
In the case under examination, the court found unlawful the exclusion of the trade union from the consultation procedures provided for by the applicable collective agreement. The company’s decision to deal consistently with only one organisation while failing to involve another signatory union was found to be detrimental to trade union prerogatives and capable of undermining its credibility with workers.
The ruling confirms that the employer must observe the participatory procedures established by collective bargaining and may not selectively choose its trade union interlocutors where those procedures require the involvement of all legitimate organisations.
27 April 2026
Collective Dismissal
Collective Dismissal: Comparison Must Extend Across the Entire Company Where Duties Are Interchangeable
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
The case arose from a collective dismissal procedure initiated following the termination of a contract. A worker challenged the dismissal on the ground that the company had confined the comparison of employees to the single site affected by the reorganisation, without comparing her position with that of workers employed at other company locations performing equivalent duties. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal upheld the claim and ordered the worker’s reinstatement.
The Court of Cassation confirmed that conclusion, reaffirming that in collective dismissals the general rule requires the employees to be selected for dismissal by reference to the entire company workforce. Restricting the pool to employees of a specific production unit, department, or site is permissible only where the company clearly sets out, from the outset of the procedure, the organisational reasons justifying that limitation.
The ruling further emphasises that the employer must explain why the workers concerned cannot be deployed elsewhere within the company or compared with colleagues performing interchangeable duties. Where equivalent professional profiles exist, it is not sufficient to refer to the discontinuation of a contract or the closure of a site in order to exclude a comparison with the remaining workforce.
The absence of such justification renders the procedure unlawful and invalidates the dismissals, with the consequences provided for by law for the protection of the workers concerned.
