The Court of Milan, with judgement No. 730 dated 8 April 2017, ruled again on the matter of applicable protection in the event of a voided probation clause for those who are hired under a contract with growing protections. In the matter in hand, a female worker was notified of termination due to failed passing of the probation period. The worker then filed her complaint at the Court of Milan, requesting, among other things that the probation clause be voided due to failure to specify the tasks that represented its scope. The Judge of first instance accepted the claims of the worker, ordering the probation clause void on the basis that (i) the term “analyst consultant” used in the letter of employment did not correspond to any of the professional profiles listed in the sector’s collective bargaining agreement, (ii) nor the scope of the clause could be understood from it, also in consideration of the peculiar establishment of the relationship which followed a mandatory hiring and, therefore, lacking pre-hiring negotiations and in full freedom of selection of the employee from the employer’s part. Regarding the protection rules applicable, the Court noted that the termination was “(merely) unjustified because ordered outside of the at-will provision, thus falling under the rules established in art. 3, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 23/15, which governs dismissals ordered in absence of just cause or justified objective or subjective reasons”. This judgement then appears in contrast with the decisions on the matter issued by the Court of Turin with judgement dated 16 September 2016, and by the Court of Milan itself with judgement dated 3 November 2016.
