The Court of Mantua, in its ruling no. 112, filed on 11 November 2020, declared the absolute nullity of dismissal for justified objective reason with consequent applicability of reinstatement in the job that was notified in violation of the express ban introduced by the law decrees enacted to face the pandemic emergency from Covid-19.
Facts of the case
A worker, a trainee of a company operating in the clothing and costume jewellery retail sector, was first put on wage guarantees due to the Covid-19 healthcare emergency. Following use of the wage guarantees, she was put on holiday and then dismissed for justified objective reason.
Objecting to the dismissal the worker appealed to the court preliminarily citing the relative invalidity for violation of the emergency legislation and secondly for lack of justified objective reason as well as violation of the repechage obligation finding that she could have been transferred to other job sites.
The Court’s decision
The assigned Court in granting the worker’s appeal explained that the generalised ban on individual dismissal for justified objective reason represents a temporary protection of the stability of employment to safeguard the market and the economic system and is a job market policy and economic policy measure connected to public order requirements.
This ban on dismissals was originally introduced by art. 46 of the “Cure Italy” Decree (Decree Law no. 18/2020) until the date of 17 May 2020, to then be later extended by later emergency provisions.
The legislative provisions in question, the Court confirmed, have an imperative and public order nature with the consequence that dismissals adopted in contrast with them, are invalid with a consequent application of reinstatement as per art. 18, 1st paragraph, Law 300/1970 and as per art. 2, Italian Legislative Decree 23/2015 (with the “expressly” invalidity from art. 1418 of the Italian Civil Code).
The Court then added that the dismissal regulations for open-ended contracts also apply to the trainee contract given the comparable nature of trainee and ordinary employee. The Court also reiterated that the employer has the burden of proving the just cause or justified reason of the dismissal and, in the case in hand, nothing was demonstrated as the company did not appear.
In light of the above, the Court decided to apply to the dismissed employee the protection of reinstatement in the previously held job, sentencing the company to pay the remuneration used as reference to calculate TFR (post-employment benefits) from the date of dismissal until reinstatement on the job, without prejudice to the worker’s right to request compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Moreover, the company was sentenced to pay welfare and social security contributions for the same period.
◊◊◊◊
The ruling under review shows that violation of the temporary ban on dismissals entails the absolute nullity of the same, for violation of an imperative law with consequent applicability of the “full” real protection contained in art. 18, paragraph 1, of Law 300/1970 and art. 2 of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 depending on whether the employees were hired before or after 7 March 2015 (date Legislative Decree 23/2015 became effective).
Altri insights correlati:
