Case Law

The Milan Court, Labour Section, with ordinance no. 11340 of 15 April 2015, specified that a generic disciplinary dispute prevents the identification of the act which is the basis for the dismissal.

The conduct of a female worker who gave work files vulgar names is not just cause for dismissal. The Cassation Court established this with ruling no. 5878/15, confirming that the conduct of the worker, despite being censurable in terms of correctness, could not be considered serious enough to irreparably damage the relationship of mutual trust, because it did not constitute a clear and repeated disregard for the company's honour and image.

The Milan Court, Labour Section, with its ruling of 29 January 2015, established that an employer who intends to dismiss more than five workers for objective reasons in one hundred and twenty days and at more than one shop, must apply the layoff procedure where the single shops (even if located in different provinces) do not constitute autonomous production units from a technical and organisational standpoint.

With its ruling no. 3486/2015, the Cassation Court established that if a company is sentenced to reinstate a worker due to wrongful dismissal, the months pay that the worker would have received if he had accepted the company’s offer of a new job, are subtracted from the total compensation for damages owed to the worker (calculated as wages lost from the day of dismissal until the day of reinstatement).

The Labour Court of Lodi confirmed that it is legal to dismiss a worker due to the elimination of the department and tasks to which the worker was assigned, and impossibility to re-use the employee in other positions compatible with physical limitations reported by the designated Company Doctor and Public Health Service. In challenging the ....