Categories: DLP Insights, 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. In this case, the conduct the worker is charged with must be considered inexistent, with the consequent right of the worker to be reinstated in his job as per article 18 of the workers’ statute.
This has been stated by the Court of Cassation, decision no. 24797/2024 of 16 September 2024. In detail, a few employees – each in the context of their own dispute over matters relating to their employment relationship – had submitted to the court a recording of a conversation that had taken place some years earlier ....
Read more
In its very recent judgment no. 2274 of 23 January 2024, the Italian Court of Cassation ruled that it is lawful for an employer to give notice of a second dismissal pending a judgment concerning a previous dismissal based on different grounds. However, the second dismissal has no effect if the first dismissal is declared ....
Read moreWith judgment no. 39129 of 26 September 2023, the Italian Court of Cassation, Third Criminal Division addressed the issue of corporate administrative liability under Italian Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, stating that “corporate administrative liability is not excluded in the light of the minimal advantage or the insignificance of the interest pursued.” The facts of the ....
Read moreWith Order no. 31660 of 14 November 2023, the Italian Court of Cassation ruled that, when dismissal for justified objective reason (giustificato motivo oggettivo, ‘GMO’) is to reduce costs, the burden is on the employer to indicate the reasons why the particular worker has been chosen. The facts of the case The employee appealed the ....
Read more