Case Law

Constitutional Court, with sentence no. 107 of May 22, 2013, stated that, in case of fixed term contract for replacement reasons, the employee name must be specified in writing. Nevertheless, for companies with a complex organization, is enough to make reference to employees who are absent in a specific company function.

The Supreme Court, IV criminal section, with sentence no. 21628 of May 20, 2013, confirmed that, regarding security in the work place, the liability for the injury at work is charged on the members of the Board of Directors, unless, throughout a deliberation, the guarantee position is assigned to just one of the directors.

The subordinate employee has a binding obligation of “correct and timely information to the employer” of his/her incapability to carry out the duties he has been assigned to, starting from his own presence on the work place.

The Court of Voghera, with the decision of March 14, 2013, confirmed that when the dismissal for just cause is not proportioned to the employee’s behavior it is unlawful, but implies just a compensation and not the reinstatement if the contested behavior occurred and the collective agreement does not provide a conservative penalty for the employee’s lack.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 8863 of April 11, 2013, stated that within a contract of services the employment relationships are not charged on the principal if its employees, having though unlawfully exercised the directive power on the contractor employees’, were not empowered with the necessary powers to behave in the name and on behalf of the company.