On 2 May 2018, the Plastic Rubber Federation signed a statement of agreement with Filctem CGIL, Femca CISL and Uiltec UIL which, in line with the Interconfederal Agreement of 9 March, has the purpose of creating a contractual model capable of responding appropriately to the needs of employees and companies operating in the sector. This with particular reference “by way of example” to the following: (i) the role of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement; (ii) industrial relations and (iii) a new remuneration by determining the fundamental elements of the Overall Remuneration and Minimum Remuneration. Moreover, key element of the statement of agreement, in order to make the next renewal of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement consistent with the principles of the interconfederal agreement, is the drafting by 30 September 2019 of a joint document containing the guidelines for the renewal of the agreement. Therefore, the parties have agreed to postpone the expiry of the current National Collective Bargaining Agreement (scheduled for 31 December 2018) to 30 June 2019, guaranteeing, as it was established at time of renewal (10 December 2015), an average gross increase of EUR 76 for level F but with the introduction of two new tranches: EUR 21.00 on 1 May 2018 and EUR 14.00 on 1 January 2019.

The Court of Turin, with judgement No. 778 dated 11 April 2018, rejected the appeal lodged by 6 riders against a well-known German food delivery company. In this case, the riders had opposed the company’s termination of the coordinated and continuous cooperation with them following their protests, dating back to 2016, to have a fairer remuneration and regulatory treatment, claiming the existence of a subordinate employment relationship. The riders claimed, in fact, that the company (i) gave them detailed “directives” concerning, among others, the time and the location of work, the verification of their presence at the starting locations, the obligation to deliver on time, and (ii) exercised power of control and supervision by monitoring their productivity. At the end of the proceedings, the Court found instead that they were not employees since “they were not obligated to perform the work and the employer was not obligated to receive their work“. According to the Court, this characteristic in the employment relationship is “in itself decisive for the purpose of excluding the applicants’ claim as to the managerial and organisational power of the employer because it is clear that, if the employer cannot demand from the worker the performance of the work, the employer cannot consequently exercise managerial and organisational power over them“. Among other things, from a practical review of the procedures governing the relationship, it emerged, in the opinion of the Court, that the riders, after confirming their availability, could revoke it, that is not show up to perform the work. And in such cases, no disciplinary penalties were imposed on them, which also excluded their submission to the disciplinary power of the alleged employer. Consequently, according to the Court of Turin, even the claims related to the voiding, ineffectiveness, and unlawfulness of the termination (rectius dismissal) and the other requests so related could not be accepted, with the consequent rejection of the appeal.

The Court of Appeals of Turin, with judgement dated 22 December 2017 reviewed a case of resignation for just cause presented by an agent of a company in the consumer credit sector. In particular, the resigning agent had appealed to the court to obtain the payment of the indemnity pursuant to art. 1751 of the Civil Code (and, alternatively, in any case the payment of compensation in lieu of notice), complaining about both the worsening of the contractual conditions applicable to the customers in his circles and the unlawfulness of the employer’s choice to reserve better contractual conditions to its branches operating in the area assigned to him. In confirming the opinion expressed by the court of first instance, the Court of Appeals stated that, on the one hand, the worsening of the contractual conditions had been expressly accepted by the agent and that, however, by virtue of a contractual clause, the employer could have also proceeded unilaterally. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals noted that the choice of the employer to favour, by reserving better conditions, its branch offices could not in any way be considered unlawful since the agent was not contractually tied by an exclusivity restriction. In light of these considerations, the judges of the Court of Appeals rejected the appeal of the resigning agent.

The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 9127 dated 12 April 2018 reviewed the case of dismissal for justified objective reasons not supported by a negative economic trend. In this case, the judges reviewing the case had deemed the employer’s dismissal unlawful because “the unfavourable situations were not such as to have a decisive influence on the normal productive activity of the sector“. The judges, on the other hand, pointed out that – although it was not possible to acknowledge the presence of a negative economic trend within the company and sector of the employer – it was unquestionable that the latter had indeed led to a corporate reorganisation, aimed at improving production efficiency and organisation, and therefore the suppression of the position of the dismissed employee. In light of this fact, the Supreme Court decided to transfer the case for judgement to the Court of Appeals having jurisdiction. Basically, in a dismissal for justified objective reasons a negative economic trend of the company does not represent a factual condition that the employer must prove, being sufficient the existence of reasons tied to productivity and business organisation such as to determine the effective removal of a specific job position. Moreover, from the reasoning of the Court it emerges that these reasons may include reasons aimed at a better managerial or productive efficiency or an increase in the profitability of the company. This is because, pursuant to art. 41 of the Constitution, the choice of the employer cannot be judged in terms of adequacy and appropriateness.

The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 10280 published on 27 April 2018 reviewed the case of a dismissal ordered to an employee who had published disparaging statements and negative comments against her employer and its representatives on her Facebook page. In particular, the Supreme Court, in confirming the decision of the judges in charge of the case, noted first of all that the conduct of the worker – although not intending to relate it to the volitional act of malice – may certainly fall within a case of serious negligence and, therefore, such as to cause damage to the bond of trust between the parties. Similarly, regarding the objective element, the Supreme Court has pointed out that “spreading a slanderous message through Facebook leads to a potential situation of defamation, for its potential ability to reach an indefinite number of people”, thus proving to be capable, also in this respect, of breaking the bond of trust at the basis of any standard employment relationship. In essence, this ruling confirms the case law trend that deems lawful those disciplinary dismissals ordered for the improper use of social networks.