In its order no. 26440 dated October 10, 2024, the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, reaffirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal imposed on an employee who had addressed a client in a rude and vulgar manner, once again underscoring the boundaries of judicial review in determining “just cause” for termination.
The judicial proceedings originated from the disciplinary dismissal of an employee assigned to the butcher counter of a supermarket, who had been accused by the employer of addressing an elderly customer with aggressive and inappropriate language.
While the court of first instance upheld the employee’s challenge to the dismissal, the Court of Appeal of Cagliari reversed this decision, confirming the legitimacy of the dismissal order.
In this case, the appellate court considered the employee’s behavior a serious breach of his contractual obligations, particularly the duty to “use courteous manners with the public and maintain a conduct consistent with civic duties,” warranting disciplinary dismissal pursuant to Article 215 of the collective bargaining agreement for employees in the Tertiary, Distribution, and Services sector, which governed the employment relationship.
The Court specifically emphasized the seriousness of the employee’s conduct, noting that the counter attendant, on that occasion, not only failed to apologize to the elderly customer but also escalated the argument with increasingly heated tones, resulting in what was described as “an undignified and somewhat concerning scene.” In assessing the appropriateness of the dismissal, the Court of Appeal also took into account the employee’s prior disciplinary record from the preceding two years. Although these prior incidents were not specifically similar, they highlighted a pattern of repeated non-compliance with company rules, rendering the continuation of the employment relationship unsustainable.
In the ruling under discussion, the Court of Cassation, by rejecting the employee’s appeal against the Cagliari Court’s decision, seized the opportunity to consolidate its stance and reaffirm certain prevailing principles concerning termination for just cause under Article 2119 of the Civil Code.
In particular, the Court of Cassation observed that “just cause,” understood as conduct that precludes even temporary continuation of the employment relationship, falls within the scope of so-called general clauses—normative provisions of limited and general content that require judicial specification in interpretation, “through consideration of both external factors relating to general societal awareness and principles implicitly referenced by the provision itself.”
Continue reading the full public version on Norme e Tributi Plus Lavoro del Il Sole 24 Ore.
By order no. 10663 of 19 April 2024, the Italian Court of Cassation stated that the employer bears the burden of proof in proving that remuneration has been properly paid.
The worker filed an application for summary judgment to obtain an order against the company to pay the amount indicated in the November 2015 pay slip.
In the first instance, the first instance Court found that the payment was due to the worker.
The company appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision, ruling that the employer had not discharged its burden of proof relating to proving in court that the sum had been paid.
The Italian Court of Cassation – confirming the Court of Appeal decision – preliminarily noted that, once the existence of an employment relationship has been ascertained, the employer is under a strict duty of proof to establish that the remuneration has been paid. The employer can do this by means of the normal documentation i.e., regulatory pay slips bearing the worker’s signature. If the employer cannot prove that it has paid the remuneration due to the employee through pay slips, it must provide appropriate documentation of the relevant payments that it has made in relation to the employee’s individual claims.
According to the Italian Court of Cassation, giving employees at the time of payment of remuneration a statement containing an indication of all the constituent elements of the remuneration does not prove payment where the worker states that it is inconsistent with the remuneration actually paid.
According to the Italian Court of Cassation, the burden falls on the worker only if he/she, after signing the pay slip, alleges that the remuneration indicated in the pay slip is inconsistent with the remuneration paid.
As the present case did not fall within the latter situation, the Italian Court of Cassation rejected the company’s appeal.
Other related insights:
An employee dismissed for drug trafficking has been reinstated and compensated. The drug related conviction occurred in the past and pre-dated the employment, when the company took over the staff from the outgoing company after taking over a contract held under a public administration tender. The Italian Court of Cassation, employment division, by order no. 8899 of 4 April 2024 held that the material fact existed but that this did not give rise to a legal ground: an old conviction has no disciplinary relevance where the employer does not prove “the relevance of the old facts on the relationship’s operation”. A criminal judgment that becomes final during the relationship, onthe other hand, may trigger the employer’s withdrawal for just cause if the relationship of mutual trust with the company fails.
Continue reading the full version published on (Italia Oggi, page 14).
The quantity of work is not synonymous with the quality of the work. Therefore, if it is a question of comparing a part-time worker with a full-time worker in relation to the amount of work performed (quantity), it is appropriate to apportion the salary based on the hours worked (so that the part-time worker receives, in proportion to the hours worked, the same pay as the full-time worker). But if it is a question of comparing workers of the same level where one is part-time and the other full-time, in relation to the service provided (quality), then it is not fair, and indeed it is occupational discrimination, to apportion experience acquired (professional skills) on the basis of hours worked. This was established by the Italian Court of Cassation in judgment no. 4313 of 19 February 2024, which added that penalising part-time work is discriminating against women, who are more likely to work part-time.
Continue reading the full version published in (Italia Oggi, page 14).
With its order of 4 January 2024, the Court of Ravenna referred to the European Court of Justice the judgment of the Italian legislation on the calculation of absences from work caused by disabling diseases in the protected period (periodo di comporto).
The question posed to the European Court of Justice can be summarised as follows: can the 180-day protected period provided for by the Confcommercio National Collective Bargaining Agreement (Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro, ‘CCNL’) (which applies without distinction to both disabled and non-disabled persons) be regarded as a reasonable accommodation that is sufficient for avoiding indirect discrimination against disabled workers?
The order is based on Directive 2000/78/EC, relating to equal treatment in employment and occupation of disabled workers, implemented in Italy by Italian Legislative Decree no. 216/2013.
On the basis of this Directive, a line of case-law has developed at Community level and, subsequently, at national level, which has held that the indiscriminate application of the same period of protection to disabled workers and non-disabled workers amounts to indirect discrimination. This is because it results in unequal treatment to the disadvantage of the disabled person who, due to the vulnerability inherent in the disability, is placed at a particular disadvantage compared to other workers, given the risk of greater possibility of accumulating days of absence and thus more easily reaching the limits of the protected period.
According to this line of case-law, the dismissal of a disabled person who, because of that disability, exceeds the protected period, must be declared null and void, as it is discriminatory.
The referring judge, after citing the European Court of Justice case on which the national case law in the lower courts and the Court of Cassation is based, raised doubts on the need to prescribe a specific duration of the protected period for disabled people, considering that the Italian legislation on illness already provides significant protection to the disabled person. The judge also expressed doubts about the applicability of mechanisms such as the employer’s deduction of periods of absence due to disability from the protected period.
Among the reasons preventing the introduction of differentiated protection, the Court of Ravenna noted that it would be impossible for the employer to distinguish absences caused by common illness from those due to disabling diseases, given that privacy regulations do not oblige the disabled person to disclose his or her state of health.
For the reasons summarised above, the referring court therefore asked the European Court of Justice to rule on the following questions:
(1) Does Directive 2000/78/EC preclude national legislation which does not provide for different rules between workers who can be classified as disabled and workers who cannot?
(2) If the national legislation were to be regarded in the abstract as constituting indirect discrimination, is the legislation itself nevertheless objectively justified by a legitimate aim and are the means of achieving that aim appropriate and necessary?
(3) Can the provision of unpaid leave, at the worker’s request, amount to suitable and sufficient reasonable accommodation for avoiding discrimination?
(4) Can an accommodation consisting of the employer’s duty to grant a further period fully paid by it, without obtaining consideration for work, be regarded as reasonable?
(5) For the purposes of assessing the discriminatory conduct of the employer, can (for the purposes of establishing the lawfulness or otherwise of the dismissal) the fact that even a possible further period of stability in the relationship paid for by the employer would not have enabled the disabled person to return to work, given his or her continuing illness, be taken into account?
Other related insights:
