In its decision no. 24595 of 13 September 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the behaviour of a worker who comes to work with trade union flyers attached to his body is unlawful because it does not constitute a regular posting or proselytising activity.
The case at issue
The worker challenged in Court the conservative disciplinary sanction imposed on him for being at work with trade union flyers attached to his chest and back.
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, stating that the conduct in question was not part of the free exercise of trade union activities, and also taking into account that the employee had never held a trade union position.
The decision
The Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, ruled that trade union proselytism in the workplace is subject to the limits provided for under Article 26 (paragraph 1) of Law no. 300 of 1970 and can therefore be considered lawful only if it does not interfere with the normal conduct of the company’s business, taking into account the specific organizational methods of the company and the nature of the work assigned to the recipients of the communications.
In particular, with the judgment under review, the Court has identified the limits within which trade union proselytising activities can be considered lawful and the limits within which this right can be exercised, as long as it respects the communication “spaces” provided by the employer, in fulfilment of the obligations imposed by the legislator, also mutually agreed, and in any case does not interfere with the normal course of the company’s activities, within the framework of the normal functional and productive profile.
With particular reference to the latter condition, the Court of Appeal correctly held that the activity of distributing flyers by the so-called “sandwich man” fell outside the limits imposed by the aforementioned Article 26, as it was a source of constant distraction from work activities and therefore interfered with the normal course of business and company life.
On these grounds, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal brought by the employee, confirming the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction imposed on him.
