Case Law

The Milan Court, Labour Section, with the ruling no. 862/2015, rejected the appeal submitted by a former employee of a Company we represent, who had applied to the aforesaid judge in order to obtain, inter alia, salary differences resulting from (i) recognition of a period of irregular work; (ii) recognition of a higher employment category; ....

The Milan Court, Labour Section, with a ruling of 30 April 2015 made a decision in a proceeding started by a manager who challenged a dismissal for just cause following a disciplinary proceeding started by the employer (i.e. an asset management company) for having seriously compromised relationships with investors of the managed investment funds. Initially ....

With its ruling no. 10037/15, the Court of Cassation returned to make a decision on the issue of psychological harassment and the relative liability of the employer. The Supreme Court connects the employer’s liability for injury from psychological harassment performed by an employee to a form of negligence due to the fact that no measures were adopted aimed at eliminating the performance of the harassing initiatives.

With its ruling no. 5173 of 16 March 2015, the Cassation Court returned to propose an interpretation, regarding the grounds for dismissal for justified reason which are not expressly contained in the law.

With its ruling no. 18667 of 6 May 2015, the Court of Cassation confirmed that, for the allegation of an illegal contract it is not sufficient to prove that the customer gave orders to the contractor's employees but it is necessary to investigate the contents of such orders and prove that they regard the provision of work actually performed.