Reflections in light of current events on workplace relationships
At a time when companies promote workplace well-being, diversity, and work-life balance, one issue often remains in the background—rarely spoken about, yet strongly felt: romantic relationships in the workplace.
This is anything but an easy matter to address, as it touches on sensitive aspects of employment law: the personal freedom of each individual clashing with the risk of conflicts of interest, while also involving the management of workplace climate and the employer’s responsibilities. A complex web, difficult to untangle—especially from a strictly legal standpoint.
Recent events have also brought the topic of workplace relationships to the forefront of public debate. Consider, for example, the so-called “ColdplayGate” case, where the kiss cam spotlight made viral the relationship (and alleged infidelity) of the then-CEO of Astronomer and the company’s HR manager. Or, more recently, the case of the now former CEO of Nestlé, who was dismissed by the company’s management for engaging in an “undisclosed relationship” with an employee, in breach of the corporate code of conduct and the group’s internal guidelines.
In any case, the point is clear: employment law and case law do not sanction personal feelings; rather, they aim to safeguard corporate organization, the principle of non-discrimination (between employees treated differently for relational reasons), and managerial transparency.
Indeed, a dismissal based solely on the mere existence of a romantic relationship between colleagues, or on its non-disclosure, would in all likelihood be deemed unlawful as a violation of the employee’s right to privacy.
However, dismissal may be considered legitimate if the employer can demonstrate that such a relationship has concretely and objectively created a conflict of interest or resulted in a breach of the duties of loyalty, fairness, and diligence, thereby irreparably undermining the bond of trust. The burden of proof for such circumstances, in any case, rests entirely with the employer.
Continue reading the full version published on The Platform.
In Provision No. 288 of May 21, 2025, the Italian Data Protection Authority fined an Italian company €420,000 for unlawful processing of an employee’s personal data later used to justify her dismissal.
The employee filed a complaint against the company, alleging improper use of her personal data extracted from her “Facebook” profile, the “Messenger” app, and certain chats from the “WhatsApp” platform. These data, made known to the company, were used to support two separate disciplinary notices.
In the first notice, dated February 16, 2024, the company quoted the contents of some comments made by the complainant on her Facebook profile, including quoted excerpts and descriptions of certain photos. In the second notice, dated March 21, 2024, it referred to a conversation on Messenger between the complainant and a third party (not employed by the company) who forwarded the conversation to the company via WhatsApp, including quoted excerpts. This second notice also included excerpts from a WhatsApp message the complainant sent to some colleagues on February 22, 2024.
Referring to Article 8 of Law No. 300/1970 (the Italian Workers’ Statute), which prohibits the employer from carrying out investigations – including via third parties – into an employee’s political, religious, or trade union opinions, as well as facts irrelevant to assessing the employee’s professional aptitude, the company claimed it had played no active role in collecting the data. It argued that the information had been reported to it and could therefore be used for disciplinary purposes, as this would not constitute a prohibited investigation under the Workers’ Statute.
The Italian Data Protection Authority used the occasion to recall that:
– The legal system protects the freedom and confidentiality of communications, recognized as fundamental rights, and any limitation is allowed only “by reasoned decision of the judicial authority, in accordance with the law” (Article 15 of the Constitution). This presumption of confidentiality, as clarified by the Constitutional Court, extends to all communication tools made available by technological evolution. (Lawfulness principle)
– The mere publication of data on publicly accessible platforms, such as social networks, does not imply that the data subject has given general consent for the free use of that data for any purpose. A specific legal basis is required for any processing other than the original purpose. (Purpose limitation principle)
– The need for data processing based on legitimate interest – the justification cited by the company in its defense – must also be evaluated under the principle of minimization. The data controller must verify that “the legitimate interest pursued cannot reasonably be achieved through less harmful means for the fundamental rights of data subjects, particularly their right to privacy”. In this case, the company failed to demonstrate that it had assessed the impact of the processing on the employee’s rights or considered less intrusive alternatives, even though the disciplinary measures could have been based on other elements. (Data minimization principle)
The Authority clarified that while it is not tasked with evaluating the disciplinary facts themselves, it is the employer – as the data controller – who must assess not only the lawfulness but also the adequacy, relevance, and proportionality of the data processing to be carried out. The Authority found numerous violations by the company, which, “once it became aware that the transmitted data concerned private communications and comments on a closed Facebook profile, […] should have refrained from using them.”
Other related insights:
With Ordinance No. 15987 of 2025, the Italian Court of Cassation established that a dismissal notice is presumed to be known by the recipient at the moment it is delivered to their residential address, even if the employee is not actually informed.
The case at hand concerns a dismissal imposed due to absolute and permanent unfitness for work, communicated to the employee by registered letter sent to their residential address. Specifically, the dismissal letter, properly delivered, was collected by the employee’s mother, who lived with him, and who decided not to hand it over to her son in order to protect him from potential psychological repercussions that the news of the dismissal might cause. Consequently, the employee challenged the dismissal after the statutory deadline of 60 days from receipt of the communication, invoking as justification for the late challenge the lack of knowledge of the dismissal.
However, both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal of Bologna (second-instance judgment) declared the appeal inadmissible, due to the expiration of the challenge period, considering the communication received at the employee’s address to be fully valid. They relied on a legal presumption of knowledge, based on the substantial legal equivalence between “knowledge” and “knowability” in relation to the delivery of an act to the recipient’s domicile.
The Court of Cassation subsequently confirmed this interpretation, reaffirming that, under Italian law, there is a legal presumption of knowledge of acts: an act is deemed to be known when it reaches the recipient’s address. This presumption can only be rebutted in the presence of objective obstacles beyond the employee’s control, such as natural disasters, serious postal disruptions, or prolonged absences due to force majeure, but not by subjective factors attributable to the recipient.
In conclusion, the ruling reiterates that, under Italian law, the deadlines to contest a dismissal are strict and start from the moment the communication reaches the employee’s address, even in cases where subjective factors prevent the employee from becoming aware of the disciplinary measure imposed on them.
In its judgment No. 19985 of 7 May 2025, the Italian Supreme Court (i.e. “Corte di Cassazione”) upheld the legitimacy of a dismissal for just cause issued to an employee who, in performing his duties as a cashier, had committed repeated accounting irregularities. These mainly involved the failure to register sales transactions and the omission of issuing fiscal receipts.
According to the Court, such conduct – although involving relatively small amounts and in the absence of clear evidence of misappropriation – was nonetheless sufficient to irreparably undermine the relationship of trust between the employer and the employee.
The case originated from an internal investigation initiated by the company through a private investigation firm, which uncovered repeated anomalies in the employee’s handling of cash transactions. These findings led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent dismissal for just cause.
The dismissal was challenged in court by the employee.
The Court of first istance, by way of an interim order issued at the end of the summary phase under Article 1, paragraphs 51 et seq. of Law No. 92/2012, and a subsequent confirmatory judgment issued at the opposition stage, upheld the employee’s claim. It annulled the employer’s dismissal and ordered the payment of compensation.
According to the first-instance judge, the employer had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the allegations made against the employee. In particular, the accounting records submitted by the company were deemed unreliable; the identified cash discrepancies were considered to be within normal operational margins and not disciplinarily relevant. Furthermore, the absence of a precise correlation between unrecorded transactions and cash surpluses did not, in the court’s view, support an inference of misappropriation. The Court also noted that the shared use of the same cash register by multiple employees, all operating under a single identification code, made it impossible to conclusively attribute the irregularities to the dismissed worker.
The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, upheld the employer’s appeal, and fully rejected the employee’s challenge.
In contrast with the first-instance rulings, the Court of Appeal found that the allegations had been sufficiently substantiated through a set of consistent circumstantial elements, including statements from the investigative personnel, evidence of cash shortages, and a thorough evaluation of witness and documentary evidence.
As a result, the appellate judges deemed the dismissal lawful, holding that the employee’s conduct – given the nature of his role and despite the relatively small sums involved – constituted a serious and repeated breach of the duties of honesty and loyalty, thus justifying the immediate termination of the employment relationship.
The employee filed an appeal before the Italian Supreme Court, raising five grounds of challenge, including the alleged failure by the Court of Appeal to examine key facts of the case – specifically, the claim that the employee had appropriated the proceeds from sales.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, fully upholding the lower Court’s decision. According to the Court, dismissal for just cause can be justified without proving misappropriation in the strict legal sense. It is sufficient that the employee’s conduct – by its objective and subjective seriousness – is capable of irreparably damaging the bond of trust with the employer.
In the case at hand, the repeated failure to record sales and to issue receipts, without any plausible justification, amounted to willful misconduct. Even in the absence of a significant financial loss, such behavior undermines the employee’s future reliability in the performance of his duties.
The Court further reiterated that the principle of proportionality must be assessed not only in relation to the actual economic damage, but also with regard to the nature and frequency of the violations, as well as the employee’s role within the company. The modest amount of money involved is therefore irrelevant; what prevails is the need to safeguard the integrity of the fiduciary relationship – particularly where the conduct is repeated over time and clearly attributable to the employee.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the failure to record cash transactions and issue fiscal receipts – even for small amounts – may constitute just cause for dismissal when such conduct reflects a willful, repeated, and disloyal attitude that irreparably undermines the employer’s trust. Specific proof of misappropriation is not required; it is sufficient that the behavior gives rise to serious doubts about the employee’s future trustworthiness.
Continue reading the full version published on Norme & Tributi Diritto de Il Sole 24 Ore.
On 20 February 2025, Decree-Law No. 6/2025, known as the ‘Decreto Milleproroghe’, was definitively approved by the Chamber of Deputies, which once again intervenes on fixed-term contracts, in particular on the reasons justifying such temporary employment relationships.
The Decree extends until 31 December 2025 the possibility for private employers to enter into fixed-term contracts exceeding 12 months, and in any case not exceeding 24 months, also for needs of a technical, organisational or productive nature, if not already provided for by collective agreements.
This provision applies to all sectors, with an initial application that could affect the tourism sector, pending updates of the relevant collective agreements.
Other related insights:
