Jobs act referendum more risks than solutions (Il Sole 24 Ore, 9 January 2025 – Vittorio De Luca)
On December 12, 2024, the Court of Cassation admitted the referendum requests filed in July by the CGIL concerning, among other things, the regulation of unlawful dismissals under the so-called the so-called increasing protection employment contract (“contratto a tutele crescenti” in Italian parlance) under Legislative Decree No. 23/2015.
This system has always interested public opinion and political debate, and still represents a point of fracture between the social partners. Suffice it to say that while, last September 8, 2024, at the first public meeting between CGIL leader Maurizio Landini and Confindustria president Emanuele Orsini, the latter confirmed that “overcoming the Jobs Act would be a plunge into the past, we have a gap between labor supply and demand that is worth 43 billion a year. For us today the issue is attracting people, not overcoming a measure that is working,” on the other hand, the CGIL leader said that with the Court of Cassation’s green light to the referendum questions “a great opportunity opens up for the Country.”
Given the persistent gap between the positions of the social partners and the strong impact that the “contratto a tutele crescenti” has on public opinion (proof of this is, most recently, the achievement of the referendum quorum), it seems useful to assess whether, from a mere technical/legal point of view, the legislation set forth in Legislative Decree No. 23/2015 currently presents substantial differences from the protection offered by Article 18, of the Workers’ Statute, as amended by Law No. 92/2012, such as to make its repeal – in the opinion of the referendum supporters – indispensable with a view to expanding the scope of applicability of reintegration protection.
In its original formulation, the legislature’s intervention was characterized by the automatic determination of the compensation due in cases of wrongful dismissal, based on a mathematical formula, to overcome a system hinging on the discretion of the judge.
Continue reading the full version published in Il Sole 24 Ore.
The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…
Headnote In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…
The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…
The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…
Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…
The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…