Case Law

The Court of Cassation, with sentence No. 11465/2012, stated the principle based on which a company, which needs to obtain a more efficient management in order to face an economic downturn, may dismiss an employee for “justified grounds” (so called “giustificato motivo”).

The Supreme Court, with the sentence no. 9965 of the April 11th, 2012, stated that the employer who reinstates only partially an executive of the company union representative, just paying the salary and acknowledging him/her the trade rights but refusing his/her work performance, is subject to administrative sanction provided for by the art. 10, par. 8, of the Law no. 300/70 (so called “Statuto dei Lavoratori”) (i.e. payment of an amount equal to the daily wage due to the employee, for each day of delay, in favour of the INPS Fund for the pensions adjustment).

Court of Cassation, with the sentence no. 9644 of the June 13th, 2012, stated that with reference to the disciplinary sanctions the advertising guarantee of the disciplinary code through the post accessible to everyone, is not applied in case the disciplinary proceeding is referred to circumstances regarding a breach of basic duties related to the employment relationship.

The Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 9199/2012, stated that the employer should not simply adopt safety measures at work suggested by the fully-developed technology, but has also to supervise that these measures are applied by the employees.

The Court of Rome, with sentence no. 8841 of May 15th, 2012, stated that the suspension - provided for by the Law no. 10/2011 (law which converted the so called “Decreto Milleproroghe”) - until December 31st, 2011 of the new terms of claiming, established by the art. 32 of Law no. 183/2010 (so called “Collegato Lavoro”), is not referred to the flexible contracts (among others, staff leasing contracts, fixed-term contracts and contracts on project basis).