21 July 2026
Pay and benefits
Superminimum: repeated failure to absorb it can consolidate as a company practice
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee challenged the absorption of the individual superminimum (superminimo, a contractual top-up element above the minimum pay scale), arguing that the prolonged failure to apply absorption had consolidated a more favourable treatment. The Court of Appeal had established that, for approximately thirteen years and on the occasion of numerous pay renewals, the company had not absorbed the payment in respect of the group of employees concerned.
The Court of Cassation confirmed that the superminimum is normally absorbable into subsequent pay increases, but that this rule may also be excluded by a company practice (uso aziendale). This arises from the spontaneous, constant and general repetition of behaviour by the employer that is favourable to employees, and operates as a collective rule of more favourable treatment, without requiring a common contractual intention of the parties.
The employer may withdraw from a company practice, but the notice of withdrawal must be clear, unequivocal and capable of being known to the employees concerned as a whole. The mere absorption of the superminimum is not sufficient, as it constitutes a simple cessation of performance and does not, in itself, express an intention to bring the practice to an end.
13 July 2026
Domestic secondment
Secondment of personnel: reimbursement of salaries is subject to VAT
Italian Revenue Agency
A commissioner’s office reimbursed a company for the basic and additional pay paid to a seconded employee, the cost of which remained entirely borne by the using body.
The Italian Revenue Agency held that, where the company remains the holder of the employment relationship, pays the salaries and receives full reimbursement of the related costs, the sums paid by the using body constitute consideration for making the personnel available. The direct link between the secondment and the payment therefore makes the transaction relevant for VAT purposes, even if the reimbursement coincides solely with the cost incurred and the personnel work exclusively in the interest of the using body.
For agreements entered into or renewed from 1 January 2025, the reimbursement of basic and additional pay must therefore be subject to VAT.
3 July 2026
Contracting
Unlawful interposition: the forfeiture period runs only from a written act ending the dissociation between formal and actual employer
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee, formally employed by a cooperative, had applied for a declaration of a permanent subordinate employment relationship with the company that had made continuous use of his work. The Tribunal had upheld the claim and the Court of Appeal had confirmed the decision.
The Court of Cassation confirmed the earlier decisions and dismissed the company’s appeal.
In particular, the Court clarified that the forfeiture period (decadenza, the time limit after which the right to bring a claim is lost) for a claim to establish or declare the employment relationship with a person other than the formal employer, applicable to cases of interposition, runs only from a written act or measure from which the end of the dissociation between the formal and the actual employer can be inferred. In the case examined, the employee had continued without interruption to work for the beneficiary company and there was no written act of disavowal.
As regards the limitation period (prescrizione), the determination of the actual employer is not in itself subject to limitation; the rights deriving from that determination are, however, subject to it. As for the running of time during the employment relationship, stability must be assessed by reference to the relationship formally and concretely existing with the interposed party, irrespective of the rules that would have governed the relationship with the actual employer or of the subsequent judicial characterisation.
4 September 2026
Illness and injury
Illness: social security protection from the previous day also with an outpatient examination
INPS
An important innovation in the management of absences from work for illness.
Departing from the previous position, established for many years, INPS and the Ministry of Labour have extended social security protection for illness to the day immediately preceding the issue of the medical certificate, even where the examination takes place at a surgery and no longer only in the case of a home visit.
Until now, in fact, if the medical certificate issued following an outpatient examination stated that the employee had been ill since the day before the date of issue, INPS did not cover that day.
Under the new approach, social security protection is simplified and made equivalent to that for home visits:
• the day indicated as the start of the illness must not be more than one day earlier than the date of the certificate;
• the preceding day must not be a public holiday falling during the week, nor fall on a Saturday or Sunday, days on which the employee must contact the out of hours medical service (continuità assistenziale).
13 June 2026
Employee monitoring
Company email: targeted defensive monitoring is lawful after well founded suspicion and adequate notice
Tribunal of Pisa
An employee challenged her dismissal for just cause, arguing that the employer’s access to her company email account was unlawful and that the messages obtained could not be used in the disciplinary proceedings. The monitoring had been started after the employer learned that the employee’s son had held a role in a supplier company, a circumstance that the employee had communicated only afterwards.
The Tribunal distinguished targeted defensive monitoring from indiscriminate monitoring. Access to email may be used where it follows a well founded suspicion, is limited by means of search criteria, and the employee has been informed in advance of the rules on the use of the tools and of possible monitoring. In the case examined, adequate notice was completed only from 18 October 2021: data prior to that date could therefore not be used, while later data could.
The usable emails had confirmed the employee’s involvement in dealings with the supplier company and her failure to communicate promptly a situation of potential conflict of interest. The Tribunal held that the duty of loyalty had been breached and that dismissal for just cause was proportionate, dismissing the claim.
11 March 2026
Pay and benefits
Executives, pay and MBO: comparison with colleagues is not enough
Tribunal of Rome
An executive asked the Tribunal to order payment of pay differences for having performed roles previously assigned to executives with higher remuneration. He also claimed MBO (management by objectives, a performance bonus scheme) instalments, both annual and deferred, arguing that he had achieved the objectives assigned to him. The employer contested the claims, citing the different breadth of the functions and the fact that the incentive system does not operate automatically.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim. As regards pay, it ruled out that, in private sector employment, there is a right to equal pay between workers performing identical or similar duties. Collective minimum pay levels must be respected, but remuneration may depend on seniority, experience, responsibility, performance and individual agreements. In the specific case, moreover, full equivalence between the roles compared had not been proven.
The MBO claim was also dismissed. A positive assessment does not, on its own, give entitlement to the bonus. It is necessary to demonstrate the prerequisites of the applicable company plan: assigned objectives, results achieved, measurement criteria, available budget and conditions of payment. Where the company adopts its own incentive system, the collective models envisaged for businesses without an internal plan do not apply automatically.
The decision confirms the importance of clear and documented rules on reward systems. For executives, pay differences and variable bonuses require specific evidence: comparison with other colleagues or a favourable assessment is not enough.
5 August 2026
Pay and benefits
Superminimum: the parties’ conduct after the contract was entered into is relevant in determining whether it is absorbable
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
Some employees had asked for a declaration that the individual superminimum (superminimo, a contractual top-up element above the minimum pay scale) was not absorbable and for the return of the sums withheld by the employer. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the claim, holding that the clause complied with the general rule of absorbability and that it was irrelevant that, for over a decade and on the occasion of several renewals of the national collective agreement, the company had made no absorption at all.
The Court of Cassation set aside the decision. In the interpretation of a contract, the literal meaning, although paramount, may not be decisive or in any event not definitive: the common intention of the parties must be reconstructed also by considering their subsequent conduct. In the case examined, the clause referred generically to future pay increases without specifying the level of bargaining; the lower courts could therefore not rule out a priori the relevance of the employer’s conduct, which was prolonged and unequivocal in the sense of not absorbing the superminimum in the subsequent national increases.
The case was remitted for a fresh interpretation of the clause in the light of that conduct; the separate question of company practice and whether it can be withdrawn from is rendered moot.
