31 March 2026
Dismissal for exceeding the sick leave entitlement period (periodo di comporto)
Comporto not exceeded: null dismissal leads to full protection
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee had been dismissed on the alleged grounds of exceeding the comporto period. The Tribunal had declared the dismissal null and void, because some absences, initially classified as common illness, had subsequently been reclassified as an occupational injury following an objection upheld by the insurance body. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, granting the employee full financial protection and the compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Before the Court of Cassation, the company argued that it had acted without fault, since the different classification of the absence had not yet emerged at the time of the dismissal. According to the company, this should have resulted in a reduction of the compensation awarded.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument. Where a dismissal is communicated before the comporto period has actually been exceeded, the dismissal is null and void and produces no effect. Under the increasing protection regime, the consequence is full reinstatement and compensatory protection for the entire period of exclusion from work, subject to deduction of any amounts the employee may have earned from other activities.
Absences counted towards the comporto period must therefore be verified with particular care, especially where there are disputes or pending insurance proceedings. The employer’s good faith is not sufficient to limit the financial consequences of a null and void dismissal.
31 August 2026
Domestic work: housekeepers and carers (colf / badanti)
Domestic work only applies where it serves the employer’s family life
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An association had entered into employment relationships classified as domestic work for staff engaged in caring for elderly people at their own homes or in residential care facilities. Following an inspection, the social security body had rejected that classification, resulting in a request for contributions under the ordinary regime and the application of penalties. The Supreme Court upheld the assessment.
According to the Court, domestic work requires a close connection between the service provided and the functioning of the employer’s family life. It is not enough for the activity to be, in the abstract, one of personal or family care. It must also be performed for the same employer and in order to meet personal needs of that employer or of a stable community comparable to a family.
In the case examined, however, the employer was a different party from the beneficiaries of the care provided. Staff were assigned to provide services for third parties, with no cohabitation or stable relationship with the association. This separation between employer and beneficiary removes the essential feature of domestic work and prevents application of the corresponding special contribution regime.
In the absence of the requirements specific to domestic work, the ordinary rules therefore apply, including as regards contributions and penalties.
7 August 2026
Pay and benefits
Amateur sport: the EUR 15,000 tax threshold also applies to employees
Italian Revenue Agency
The Italian Revenue Agency (Agenzia delle Entrate) has clarified that the exemption from taxation of payments received for amateur sporting activity also applies where the relationship is one of employment.
The benefit depends on the nature of the sporting activity carried out, not on the contractual form chosen by the parties. The annual threshold of EUR 15,000 therefore applies to the payments received by the sportsperson regardless of whether the income derives from employment, a coordinated and continuous collaboration arrangement (co.co.co., collaborazioni coordinate e continuative), or self-employment.
The relief affects the taxable base but does not alter the classification of the income. The portion exceeding EUR 15,000 remains subject to the tax rules applicable to the relationship in question: in the case of employment, the excess therefore forms part of employment income.
For sports bodies, the clarification has an immediate practical effect: when managing payroll, the sportsperson’s overall annual threshold must be taken into account even where an employment contract is in place, applying ordinary taxation only to the excess amount.
31 May 2026
Individual dismissal
Written dismissal and signature “for receipt”: when the employee must challenge the document’s authenticity
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee challenged his dismissal, claiming that he had been dismissed orally. The Tribunal found in his favour, while the Court of Appeal held the challenge to be out of time, giving weight to a dismissal letter signed by the employee “for receipt”. The dispute therefore came before the Court of Cassation.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision on the merits. It clarified that, where the employee does not merely dispute the conformity of the copy with the original but disputes that the signature affixed “for receipt” corresponds to actual awareness of the dismissal notice, the challenge concerns the ideological content of the document.
In such a case, a simple denial of the copy’s conformity is not sufficient: to deprive the document of its evidential value, it is necessary to bring a querela di falso (an action challenging the authenticity of the document). The decision also confirms that the production of the original dismissal letter, together with further documentary evidence, may help to prove that the written dismissal notice was in fact communicated.
7 July 2026
Business travel and transfer
Drivers’ business travel: the flat-rate deduction requires an actual cost
Italian Revenue Agency
A road haulage company asked whether it could apply the flat-rate deduction provided for drivers’ business travel outside the municipal territory even where, in practice, it did not grant employees any allowance or expense reimbursement. The query concerned both directly employed staff and agency workers engaged as drivers.
The tax authority answered in the negative. The flat-rate deduction is not a benefit detached from any cost, but still presupposes that the business has actually incurred an expense connected with the business travel. The fact that the amount is determined on a flat-rate basis does not therefore remove the need for an actual expense, even if it is not calculated analytically.
In the case examined, the company stated that it paid no amount whatsoever for drivers’ business travel, whether as an allowance or as a reimbursement. In the absence of an actual cost incurred, the requested deduction cannot be applied.
10 June 2026
Sickness and injury
Sick leave, availability for check-ups and certificates: repeated errors and absences from home may jeopardise employment
Tribunal of Milan
An employee on sick leave was dismissed following two disciplinary charges. The company alleged, on the one hand, that she had failed to correctly indicate on her medical certificates the address and intercom details needed for the check-up visits and, on the other, that she had left her home on two occasions during the periods of mandatory availability for such visits. The employee argued that she had informed the doctor of her new address and that she had gone out for reasons compatible with her state of health.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim. An employee must check that the sick leave certificate contains the details necessary to allow the check-up visit to take place and must act promptly to correct any omissions. It is therefore not sufficient to have informed the doctor of the new address if the certificate transmitted does not, in practice, allow the check-up to be carried out.
The Court also considered the absences during the periods of mandatory availability to be relevant, even though no check-up visit had been arranged on those occasions. The obligation to remain at home is intended precisely to make possible the check requested by the employer.
In the case examined, the repeated irregularities in the certificates and the two absences from home amounted, under the applicable collective agreement (CCNL, Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro), to a number of unjustified absences sufficient to justify the dismissal.
23 July 2026
Collective dismissal
Reinstatement later overturned: pay accrued during the restored employment relationship is not cancelled
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
Some employees, reinstated after the Tribunal had declared a collective dismissal unlawful, had been recalled to work. During the resumption of the employment relationship, however, the company had transferred them to another workplace; the transfers were subsequently held to be unlawful. The employees had obtained payment orders for the pay accrued during the period of reinstatement. Subsequently, the judgment on the dismissal was overturned, and the Court of Appeal held that the basis for retaining the sums received had fallen away, ordering their repayment.
The Supreme Court clarified that overturning the reinstatement judgment removes the effects directly connected with the finding that the dismissal was unlawful, but does not cancel the acts of actual management of the relationship during the period in which it was in fact restored. Where the employer recalls employees and resumes exercising its organisational powers, the rights and obligations arising in that phase remain in place.
The referring court will therefore need to verify whether the pay claimed is due to the employees also in light of the unlawfulness of the transfers.
