7 August 2026
Pay and benefits
Welfare schemes and education expenses: the tax relief remains available even if paid by the spouse
Italian Revenue Agency
A corporate welfare scheme allowed employees to claim reimbursement of education expenses incurred for their children. The employer’s doubt arose when the cost, although referring to the employee’s child, was paid by the spouse from a current account held solely in her name.
The Italian Revenue Agency clarifies that this circumstance does not, in itself, prevent the favourable treatment. The reimbursement can remain excluded from employment income even if payment was made by the spouse, provided the documentation allows the beneficiary of the service and the nature of the expense to be identified, so as to verify its consistency with the permitted educational purposes.
For the employer, documentary control remains central.
A declaration must be obtained from the employee confirming that the same invoices have not been and will not be used to obtain other reimbursements, including from different parties. The employee must also retain the documents referred to in the declaration for any future checks.
The clarification therefore broadens the flexibility of welfare schemes: what matters is whether the expense can be attributed to the family member and to the eligible purpose, not who physically made the payment. The possibility of combining further tax relief on the same cost remains excluded.
21 July 2026
Duties and demotion
Higher duties: no right to reclassification where short-term assignments have a genuine substitutive function
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee, engaged for several periods as chief engineer performing higher duties, sought definitive recognition of the corresponding higher grade. The assignments, each lasting less than three months, were interspersed with periods of ordinary duties, rest days, holidays and medical appointments. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the claim, having found that the assignments had a substitutive function and that neither the vacancy of the post nor any abusive scheduling by the employer had been proven.
The Supreme Court confirmed that, for the purposes of automatic promotion, it is for the employee to prove that the replaced employee was absent without the right to retain the post. The repetition of assignments shorter than the qualifying period is not, on its own, sufficient to establish the right to a higher grade.
Fraudulent conduct on the part of the employer can only be found where the assignments lack a genuine substitutive function. Where that function exists, no right to higher classification arises, and no conduct aimed at circumventing its accrual can be established.
5 August 2026
Self-employment and subordinate employment
Reclassification of project-based collaboration excludes the fixed-term contract lump-sum indemnity
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee, having first worked under a project-based contract (contratto a progetto) and subsequently under a coordinated and continuous collaboration arrangement (co.co.co., collaborazioni coordinate e continuative), had obtained at first instance a finding of an open-ended employment relationship, with the company ordered to reinstate the relationship and pay the salary differences due. The Court of Appeal upheld the subordinate nature of the relationship but limited the compensation to six months’ pay, applying the lump-sum indemnity provided for the conversion of fixed-term contracts.
The Supreme Court set aside this ruling, holding that the reclassification of a project-based collaboration, carried out from the outset in a manner characteristic of subordinate employment, does not amount to the conversion of a fixed-term contract. Conversion presupposes the invalidity of the duration clause of a relationship that was already subordinate, whereas reclassification brings to light the true nature of the relationship and overrides the deadlines set out in formally self-employed contracts. The lump-sum compensatory indemnity provided for fixed-term contracts therefore does not apply to a finding of subordination.
29 July 2026
Incentives
Hiring mothers with at least three children: contribution exemption of up to EUR 8,000 per year
INPS
INPS has issued instructions on the contribution exemption granted to private employers who, from 1 January 2026, hire women who are mothers of at least three children under the age of 18 and who have not held regularly paid employment for at least six months.
The relief consists of a 100% exemption from the social security contributions payable by the employer, excluding INAIL premiums and contributions, up to a limit of EUR 8,000 per year, equal to EUR 666.66 per month. It applies for 12 months in the case of a fixed-term hire, including through agency work; for 18 months, from the date of the first hire, if a fixed-term relationship already benefiting from the relief is converted to an open-ended one; and for 24 months in the case of an open-ended hire.
Domestic work, apprenticeships and intermittent work are excluded. The benefit cannot be combined with other exemptions or reductions in employer contributions, although it is compatible, among other things, with the increased deductible cost for new hires and with the relief linked to gender equality certification. The application must be submitted using the online “ELM3” form on the INPS Benefits Portal.
1 July 2026
Monitoring of employees
Remote monitoring in smart working: instant geolocation at clocking-in is not prohibited
Tribunal of Cosenza
An employee working remotely (lavoro agile, smart working) had challenged the data processing carried out by the employer through an application which recorded her geographic position at the moment of clocking in and during spot checks preceded by a phone call. The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante) had found the system unlawful and imposed a fine of EUR 50,000.
The Tribunal set aside the injunction order. It found that the application did not carry out continuous or indiscriminate monitoring but a detection limited to the clocking-in moment, comparable to an attendance recording tool, albeit with a geolocation function. The monitoring, carried out for organisational and production needs, had been regulated through trade union agreements and preceded by information considered adequate for employees.
According to the Judge, remote working does not exclude the parties agreeing the locations and time bands within which the work is to be carried out. Instant geolocation, within the specific limits established, therefore does not amount to invasive or disproportionate monitoring, and the data collected is relevant to verifying attendance.
31 August 2026
Outsourcing
Social clause: transfer to the new contractor is not automatic for staff who were not permanently assigned to the service transferred in a change of contractor
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee sought to be hired by the special company set up by the Municipality to bring in-house social services previously entrusted to cooperatives, invoking the social clause provided for by the collective agreement (CCNL, Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro). The employee, although hired on an open-ended basis by the outgoing cooperative, had been used for substitutive needs and placed on the so-called long list.
The Court of Cassation clarified that the social clause protects continuity of employment where the new operator is required to provide the same services with the same organisational needs. It does not therefore entail an absolute obligation to hire all staff employed by the outgoing contractor, but binds the transfer only of workers permanently assigned to the service that is to continue.
In the case examined, the number of workers to be hired had been determined on the basis of the tender specifications and the actual needs of the in-housed management. Since the claimant was assigned to substitutive duties and was not permanently assigned to the retained service, the failure to hire him does not breach the social clause.
14 January 2026
Personnel administration
Itinerant employee: territorial jurisdiction may be established at the place of residence
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee carried out his work exclusively by accompanying patients to clinics and hospitals, receiving instructions by telephone from his employer, parking the vehicle used for the service at his home every day, and without attending the company’s offices.
The Court of Cassation reiterated that, for the purposes of the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the concept of a company branch office (dipendenza aziendale) must be interpreted broadly: a decentralised set of assets with its own technical and economic individuality is sufficient, even if of modest scale and lacking decision-making or supervisory powers.
In the case of itinerant work, the concrete manner in which the work is carried out is therefore relevant, regardless of any place of work indicated in the contract. It is sufficient that a minimum core of assets functional to the work activity can be identified at the home; ownership of such assets is not, however, decisive. Where these elements are present, jurisdiction may be established before the court of the employee’s place of residence.
