18 June 2026
Industrial relations
Change of collective agreement: the employer’s notice of withdrawal is not enough
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A number of workers sought application of the private healthcare collective agreement and payment of the resulting wage differentials. The employer had communicated a switch to a different collective agreement but had then continued to apply the previous one. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal upheld the claims.
The Court of Cassation confirmed the decision. The clause maintaining the collective agreement in force until renewal identifies a terminal date: before that point, the individual employer cannot withdraw unilaterally, not even by giving notice. The power to give notice of withdrawal belongs to the organisations that concluded the agreement. Upon expiry, by contrast, the employer may choose a different agreement, unless it is bound to the renewal by virtue of membership of the signatory employers’ association.
In the case under examination, the continued application of the agreement even after renewal was found to constitute a conclusive course of conduct capable of binding the employer notwithstanding the prior communication of a change. For companies, amending the applicable collective agreement therefore requires careful attention both to the expiry date and to subsequent conduct: pay and management of the employment relationship must be consistent with the declared choice, failing which wage differentials may accrue.
15 June 2026
Self-employment and employment
Doctors and sham self-employment: mere integration into the company structure is not enough to establish subordination
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker who had operated for over sixteen years as a doctor at a medical analysis laboratory sought a declaration that the relationship, formally governed as a professional collaboration with invoicing, was in fact one of employment, and claimed payment of the economic differentials accrued in respect of annual leave, the thirteenth month’s pay, and TFR (trattamento di fine rapporto, the statutory severance entitlement).
The claim was upheld at first instance, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision in its entirety. The Court of Cassation confirmed the dismissal of the claim, reaffirming that classification of a relationship as employment requires proof of concrete elements from which the worker’s subjection to the employer’s managerial, organisational, and disciplinary authority may be inferred. That assessment must be carried out by considering the actual terms of performance as a whole.
According to the Supreme Court, coordination with the company’s activity, continuous presence at the premises, or mere integration into the organisation are not sufficient. In the case examined, weight was instead placed on the absence of any imposed working hours, the lack of any managerial power over leave, the payment of fees by invoice, and the organisational freedom enjoyed by the professional. Even reliance on so-called attenuated subordination, frequently invoked in the context of professional and intellectual activities, cannot dispense with the pleading and proof of specific indicators capable of demonstrating genuine subjection to the employer’s authority.
2 July 2026
Illness and injury
Ambiguous inspection report and conservative sanction: the dismissal does not stand
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker had been dismissed for just cause following three medical inspection visits during a period of sick leave. On two occasions the reports recorded an ambiguous outcome, without clarifying whether the worker had been absent or whether the doctor had failed to locate the address correctly. On a third visit, the worker had left to attend a physiotherapy session without giving the company prior notice.
The Tribunal had set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement. The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision, finding the first two absences unproven and classifying the third as conduct punishable under the collective agreement by a conservative sanction.
The Court of Cassation confirmed that, in disciplinary dismissals, it is for the employer to demonstrate clearly the worker’s actual absence from the declared address. A report with equivocal content is not sufficient to establish the charge. Furthermore, where the collective agreement links the conduct to a conservative measure, the court may not substitute dismissal in its place.
14 May 2026
Dismissal for just cause
Social media criticism and dismissal: when offensive posts go beyond the right to dissent
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker had been dismissed after repeatedly publishing offensive posts and comments about the company on social media, including allegations of unsubstantiated facts. The publications had continued notwithstanding prior disciplinary charges and a court order requiring the removal of the content and the cessation of further defamatory messages. Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal found the termination to be lawful.
The Court of Cassation confirmed the decision. The worker’s right to criticise is protected, but must respect precise limits: the facts attributed to the employer must be true, the criticism must serve a legitimate interest, and the language used must remain correct and proportionate. Dissemination via social media requires particular care, as it amplifies the impact of the statements and the reputational harm caused.
In the case examined, the repetition of the messages, their seriously damaging tone, and the failure to comply with the removal order excluded any legitimate exercise of the right to criticise. The dismissal was therefore found to be proportionate.
For companies, the ruling confirms that online conduct may give rise to disciplinary consequences where it exceeds dissent and becomes offensive or defamatory. For workers, the message is clear: even on social media, criticism must be based on verified facts and expressed in respectful terms.
26 May 2026
Employment contract – Ancillary clauses
Clients diverted before resignation: the worker is liable for damages
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A technical director at a healthcare centre had, before resigning without notice, made contact with a view to transferring the patients of his department to a competing facility. The Tribunal had excluded any liability, whilst the Court of Appeal had ordered the worker to pay compensation, finding a breach of the duty of loyalty. The Court of Cassation confirmed the decision.
An employee must refrain, during the employment relationship, from conduct contrary to the employer’s interests. It is not necessary for the conduct to amount to unfair competition in the strict sense: it is sufficient that the worker, by exploiting knowledge and relationships acquired within the company, prepares or facilitates the transfer of clients to a competitor.
In the case examined, the contacts with patients and the organisation of their transfer had commenced whilst the relationship was still in being. The subsequent resignation therefore did not eliminate the unlawfulness of the conduct already carried out.
The ruling calls on companies to document with precision the timing and manner of any competitive initiatives, and reminds workers that the freedom to commence a new activity does not permit the diversion of clients prior to the termination of the employment relationship.
28 May 2026
Dismissal for exceeding the sick leave entitlement period
Extended sick leave: the employer must investigate signs of serious illness before dismissing
Tribunal of Gorizia
A worker who had been absent due to a serious oncological condition and subsequent complications was dismissed after exceeding the ordinary period of job protection. The company maintained that it had not received formal communication sufficient to trigger the longer period provided for by the collective agreement. The worker pointed out, by contrast, that the employer was aware of the nature and seriousness of the illness through medical certificates, messages, and information exchanged during the absence.
The Tribunal found the dismissal to be unlawful. The documentation did not always indicate the diagnosis explicitly, but painted a serious picture: operations, hospital admissions, complications, and certifications linked to a condition of incapacity. In addition, the manager had been informed of the oncological condition through informal communications, which the company itself had used in managing the absences.
According to the court, where the collective agreement does not prescribe rigid formalities, the worker may provide the relevant information through informal channels. The employer must, however, cooperate in good faith and fairly. Where it has at its disposal elements suggesting a serious illness and the possible entitlement to a longer protection period, it cannot remain inactive: it must seek clarification before proceeding with termination.
8 June 2026
Working time, holidays and leave
Holiday pay and variable allowances: what matters is the actual effect on remuneration
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker classified as a train driver sought inclusion, in his holiday pay, of the variable component of the professional utilisation allowance and the away-from-residence allowance. The Tribunal had upheld the claim, whilst the Court of Appeal had dismissed it, noting that the two items together amounted to only 3.37% of the overall pay package.
The Court of Cassation confirmed the appellate decision. It recalled that holiday pay must be maintained at a level substantially comparable to ordinary pay and must include components linked to the worker’s duties and professional status. However, the exclusion of individual items is relevant only where it produces, in concrete terms, a reduction capable of discouraging the taking of leave.
In the case examined, the modest economic impact of the excluded allowances did not produce any such dissuasive effect. The failure to include them in the holiday pay calculation was accordingly found to be lawful.
