Categories: Insights, Case Law

Tag: Demansionamento


28 Jan 2018

Refusal of service is justified only in the case of serious default by the employer

 The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 836 dated 16 January 2018 overturned the judgement issued by the Court of the Appeals having local jurisdiction, which agreeing to the conclusions reached by the judge of first instance, had confirmed the unlawfulness of the dismissal ordered to an employee, who, by refusing to perform demoting tasks, failed to go to work for more than four days. The Court of Appeals, ordering the reintegration of the employee at work pursuant to article 18, Law No. 300/70, deemed such behaviour as a legitimate form of self-protection pursuant to article 1460 of the Civil Code The Court of Cassation – while confirming the demotion and the partial application of the requirements for the application of the aforementioned civil law – accepted the employer’s appeal (losing party in the proceedings on the merits) on the principle that the assignment to demoted tasks does not authorise the worker to refuse to provide service at all. This is valid where the employer (as in the specific case) meets its primary obligations such as payment of salary, social security contributions and insurance, in addition to health and safety protection. In summary, only in the case of employer’s full default then refusal to provide service is allowed and deemed justified. Otherwise, what occurs is a conduct in violation of the principle of good faith as established in article 1460 of the Civil Code, in addition to the duties of due diligence and submittal to the hierarchical authority of the employer.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…

1 Sep 2026

Company files deleted from the PC: dismissal lawful even without proof of damage

The matter arises from the disciplinary dismissal of an employee performing general secretarial duties who, upon returning the company computer following a change in her duties, handed back…

1 Sep 2026

Overtime work: a summary schedule is not enough, employees must provide strict evidence of both the hours worked and the extent of the overtime performed

With order no. 20700 of 18 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court once again addressed the issue of overtime work, reiterating that employees claiming overtime pay must strictly…

1 Sep 2026

Did you know that… an individual allowance that has remained unchanged for years may become non-absorbable?

In judgment no. 24475 of 5 August 2026, the Employment Section of the Italian Supreme Court confirmed that an individual allowance (i.e. “superminimo”), although normally subject to the…

3 Aug 2026

Pay Transparency: the first requests from employees are starting to arrive (Il Sole 24 Ore, 3 august 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Two months after the decree. Since Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7 June, according to a flash survey conducted by GIDP, 8% of HR directors have…