15 June 2026
Workplace harassment (mobbing)
Mobbing ruled out but the employer is still liable for a stressful working environment
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee had claimed compensation for damage other than economic loss arising from the employer’s conduct over a period of more than two years. The Tribunal, while ruling out mobbing owing to the lack of systematic conduct, had recognised differential biological damage (danno biologico differenziale), emphasising the offensive effect of repeated disciplinary sanctions and the assignment of duties incompatible with the employee’s physical condition.
The Court of Cassation upheld the decision. The employer’s duty of protection is not limited to mobbing: it also covers conduct which, although lacking a plurality of harassing acts and a persecutory intent, affects the employee’s health and professional wellbeing and is capable of sustaining an environment of stress or serious distress that causes harm to health.
In the case at hand, the claim for compensation was found to extend sufficiently to the harmful employer conduct described overall by the employee. The company’s appeal was therefore dismissed.
29 September 2026
Personnel administration
TFR3: new form for the choice of TFR and code “T3” in Uniemens flows
INPS
The new TFR3 form allows private sector employees taking up their first employment after 30 June 2026 to make their choices on the destination of their TFR (trattamento di fine rapporto, the statutory severance entitlement), in light of the automatic enrolment in supplementary pension schemes introduced from 1 July 2026.
Within sixty days of first being hired, the employee may opt out of automatic enrolment, choose a different supplementary pension scheme, or keep the TFR under the regime of Article 2120 of the Civil Code. The form also collects declarations from employees who are not first hires regarding choices previously made and any fund to which future accruing TFR is to be allocated. Employers use it to meet their obligations to inform, document and retain the declarations.
INPS has adapted the Uniemens flows: from the July 2026 reference period, the new value “T3”, relating to the explicit choice made using the TFR3 form, may be used in the TipoScelta element of the GestioneTfr/DestinazioneTFR section. For flows already submitted for the reference periods from July 2026 until the publication of the message, DataScelta may be completed with a date earlier than the current month.
18 September 2026
Health and safety at work
Workplace safety: payment to extinguish the offence cannot be paid in instalments
National Labour Inspectorate (INL)
The National Labour Inspectorate (Ispettorato Nazionale del Lavoro, INL) has ruled out the possibility of paying in instalments the sum due from the offender after compliance with the remedial order (prescrizione) issued by the supervisory body in matters of occupational health and safety.
The payment, equal to one quarter of the maximum fine provided for the offence, must be made in full within thirty days. Together with compliance with the order, it is a condition for the extinction of the offence. The rules on payment by instalments of administrative sanctions therefore do not apply, and the supervisory body cannot grant extensions.
A fine imposed by judgment or by criminal conviction order (decreto penale di condanna) is different, as the Judge may allow it to be paid in instalments. The INL also clarified that sums paid late cannot be set off against a subsequent fine and must be refunded.
15 June 2026
Health and safety at work
Injury caused by the unforeseeable conduct of a third party: employers’ liability ruled out
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
During a lunch break, an employee had been struck on the head by a bottle thrown by an employee of another company, who had reacted after being hit in the face with a ball. The lower courts had ruled out the liability of the two employers and recognised that of the person who physically committed the act.
The Court of Cassation confirmed that, where an injury results from the negligent and unforeseeable conduct of a third party, wholly unrelated to work duties and to the risks connected with work, such conduct may constitute an autonomous causal series capable on its own of bringing about the event. In that case the causal link between the work activity and the harm is broken, and the harm falls outside the area of risk protected by safety rules.
The liability of the employer of the person who committed the act was also ruled out: the fact that the incident occurred in the working environment is not sufficient if the duties assigned to the employee did not make the harmful conduct possible or facilitate it.
22 September 2026
Dismissal for just cause
False testimony by an employee against the employer may justify dismissal
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
An employee had been dismissed for having given, as a witness in proceedings brought by her sister against the employer company, statements considered false and damaging to the company’s reputation, concerning the failure to apply safety procedures. The lower courts had declared the dismissal null, considering it retaliatory, without establishing the truthfulness of the testimony.
The Court of Cassation clarified that the duty to testify does not exclude the disciplinary relevance of statements that are knowingly or negligently untrue, lacking a reasonable factual basis and capable, by their content, context and seriousness, of undermining the relationship of trust. However, falsity does not automatically make the dismissal lawful: the seriousness of the conduct and the proportionality of the sanction must be assessed in the specific case.
As regards retaliation, the disproportion of the charge may have presumptive value but does not by itself prove that the intent of reprisal was the sole and determining reason for the termination. It must be verified whether the disciplinary reason given is merely apparent or a pretext.
The Court therefore quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal of Rome for a fresh examination.
2 October 2026
Agency contract
In an agency contract, delay in terminating for just cause does not automatically make the termination unlawful
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A financial promoter had challenged the termination for just cause notified to him by the principal company nine months after the conclusion of an inspection. The Court of Appeal had held the termination unlawful because it was late, without examining the allegations on the merits.
The Court of Cassation clarified that, in an agency contract, the principle of immediacy in notifying the allegations operates to make the grounds for the principal’s termination known and unchangeable, but does not introduce an autonomous forfeiture period, the expiry of which automatically renders the termination of the relationship unlawful.
The time elapsed between knowledge of the facts and termination may in any case be relevant in assessing the existence and the current relevance of just cause. That assessment must be made in the specific case, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the relationship of trust, the complexity of the investigations and the principal’s organisation.
The Court of Cassation therefore set aside the judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal to examine just cause and, where necessary, the agent’s financial claims.
7 October 2026
TFR, notice and other termination payments
TFR not paid to the Treasury Fund remains a wage claim against the employer
Court of Cassation, Joint Sections
The Joint Sections of the Court of Cassation have resolved the conflict of case law over the nature of the shares of TFR (trattamento di fine rapporto, the statutory severance entitlement) which employers with at least 50 employees have been required to pay into the INPS Treasury Fund (Fondo di Tesoreria) since 1 January 2007, where not allocated to supplementary pension schemes.
TFR retains the nature of deferred remuneration, with a pension function in the broad sense, including for the shares allocated to the Fund. The establishment of the Treasury Fund did not amend Article 2120 of the Civil Code but only the methods of financing and payment of the benefit.
The Treasury Fund is liable only for the shares actually paid. For those not transferred, the employer’s obligation remains, without application of the principle of automaticity of social security benefits under Article 2116 of the Civil Code. In the event of judicial liquidation (liquidazione giudiziale) of the employer, the employee may therefore lodge the related wage claim in the insolvency proceedings; for the shares not paid, the protection of the Guarantee Fund (Fondo di Garanzia) remains applicable, where the conditions are met.
In the case examined, the Court of Cassation rejected the ground by which INPS denied the intervention of the Guarantee Fund for the shares not transferred to the Treasury Fund, and remitted the case to the Labour Division for examination of the other two grounds of appeal.
