<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dear Readers,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With this issue, the Newsletter goes on vacation. We hope you have enjoyed the new layout and content provided throughout the year and found them useful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On this occasion, we inform you that during the period from August 12 to August 25, 2024, the Labour department of the Firm will observe reduced hours and limited activities. As usual, for emergencies, we will still be reachable via email, and we will ensure to handle any pending activities. The Newsletter will resume in September.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Enjoy your reading and our best wishes to all of you for the upcoming holidays!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Vincenzo Fabrizio Giglio<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starting July 1, 2024, new restrictions on the use of tax offsets via F24 form will come into effect, as provided by the 2024 Budget Law (Law No. 213\/2023) and further modified by Decree Law No. 39\/2024. The Revenue Agency has outlined the application methods for these new provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From July 1, 2024, all tax offsets via the F24 form must be carried out exclusively using the Revenue Agency’s telematic services. This obligation applies to all types of credits and payments, including those to INPS and INAIL. Even in the case of partial offsets, it will not be possible to use non-telematic or home banking F24 forms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For taxpayers with amounts enrolled in the register exceeding 100,000 euros, for which payment terms have expired and no suspension measures are in place, offsetting via F24 is prohibited. This prohibition applies even if the taxpayer has tax credits exceeding the debts. The taxpayer must first settle the debt to access the offset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The offsetting prohibition does not apply to social security contributions owed by holders of insurance positions, to social security and welfare contributions owed by employers, and to premiums for workplace accident insurance. However, if the prohibition is in place, it is not allowed to display both INPS or INAIL credits and other credits for which the prohibition applies in the same F24 payment delegation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An employer initiated the preventive conciliation procedure at the Labour Inspectorate and then dismissed an employee for objective justified reason, declaring the impossibility of relocating them to equivalent job positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal declared the dismissal legitimate, considering that in terms of rep\u00eachage, it would be sufficient to demonstrate that the company did not hire permanent staff for equivalent positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the worker, stating that dismissal for objective justified reason is not legitimate if the employer, after declaring the organizational position eliminated, does not offer the employee relocation to other existing tasks within the company, even if these are inferior and fixed-term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A company sued a former employee who, upon moving to a competitor, had poached two of its most important employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court rejected the company’s claim, specifying that for acts of unfair competition contrary to the principles of professional fairness committed through employee poaching, it is necessary that the activity of distracting the entrepreneur’s personnel resources was carried out by the competitor in ways that cannot be justified in relation to the principles of professional fairness, unless assuming the intention to harm the competitor’s organization and production structure. The supposed intent, therefore, must be to cause damage exceeding the normal prejudice that any entrepreneur may suffer from the loss of employees or collaborators due to their decision to work for another company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A worker, against whom a disciplinary procedure was initiated for opposing the change of the employment contract to part-time, was subsequently dismissed for objective justified reason due to an alleged company crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court of Appeal, overturning the first-instance ruling, annulled the dismissal, ordering the worker’s reinstatement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the worker, specifying that if the dismissal, although cloaked in other reasons such as objective justified reason, is communicated due to the worker’s refusal to accept the proposal to change from part-time to full-time (or vice versa), the termination is considered retaliatory and, as such, falls under the cases of nullity that lead to reinstatement protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first module of the tax reform introduced, limited to the 2024 fiscal year, an additional off-balance sheet deduction (in addition to the cost allocated to the income statement) from the business or professional self-employment income for those who hire permanent employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The incentive is equal to 20% (or 30% for employees in particular “deserving” categories) of the lesser amount between these elements: cost incurred in 2024 for new permanent hires; increase in the total personnel cost recorded in the income statement – or what was paid for professionals -, in 2024 compared to 2023. The application mechanism therefore provides for two percentages: 20% for ordinary employees and 30% (20%+10%) for deserving categories. In the presence of both “ordinary” personnel and “deserving” individuals and an increase in personnel cost between 2023 and 2024 less than the cost of new hires, this lower amount (which, being less, becomes the basis for calculating the bonus) is proportionally divided over the two percentages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A manager who resigned respecting the notice period cannot be excluded from access to company offices and email, even for a limited period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case concerns a manager who, after submitting their resignation, had their company email account disabled, access to company premises denied, and computer and phone taken away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a result, the worker found themselves unable to perform any activities and claimed to have suffered professional and reputational damage. The manager then communicated resignation for just cause, requesting, among other things, the payment of the notice indemnity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court upheld the manager’s complaints and confirmed the validity of the just cause for resignation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"