In judgment no. 28367 of 27 October 2025, the Court of Cassation – Labour Section – upheld the legitimacy of the summary dismissal imposed on an employee who, outside working hours, had engaged in sporting activities that were inconsistent with the medical prescriptions limiting his physical fitness for the performance of certain duties.
In the case at hand, a production-line worker had been declared fit for work with restrictions by the occupational physician, who had prohibited him from handling loads exceeding 18 kg and from lifting items above shoulder height due to a spinal condition. The employer, however, discovered that the employee routinely worked as a personal trainer at a gym in his free time, performing weightlifting exercises that were incompatible with the imposed restrictions. Evidence of such conduct also came from videos posted by the employee himself on his social media profiles.
Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal of Rome upheld the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal, finding that the conduct in question was capable of undermining the relationship of trust and amounted to a breach of the employee’s duties of loyalty, fairness and good faith. The Court of Appeal, in particular, emphasised that the evidence of the facts did not derive from the investigative activities ordered by the employer, but from the employee’s own conduct during the proceedings—he had never disputed the factual circumstances alleged—and from the content he himself had shared online.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the employee’s appeal in its entirety, confirming the soundness of the reasoning adopted by the lower courts. First, it reiterated that the obligations of an employee do not end with the performance of work duties, but extend to ancillary duties of fairness and good faith, which complement and broaden the duty of loyalty owed to the employer. These obligations also apply to off-duty conduct when such conduct may potentially harm the employer’s interests or undermine the trust required for the continuation of the employment relationship.
Second, the Supreme Court clarified that, for just cause to be established, actual harm is not required; it is sufficient for the conduct to be potentially detrimental. In the case at hand, the employee’s systematic engagement in sporting activities that contravened medical prescriptions was deemed incompatible with the restrictions imposed to protect his health, exposing the employer to the risk of an aggravation of the condition and further sickness absences.
In conclusion, the ruling reaffirms that the employee’s duty of loyalty includes the obligation to maintain behaviour consistent with their physical condition and with the employer’s organisational needs, even outside working hours. Engaging in sporting activities that may be harmful to one’s health, in violation of medical prescriptions known to the employer, constitutes a serious breach of trust and may justify summary dismissal.
In its judgment no. 500/2025, the Court of Appeal of Bologna, on 13 October 2025, provides an important analysis of the principles governing challenges to multiple dismissals served on the same employee, with a specific focus on the distinction between “subsequent” and “simultaneous” dismissals and the resulting procedural implications. The Court, upholding the first-instance decision, rejected the employee’s appeal and reiterated that the failure to challenge one of the two dismissals in court makes that dismissal final, thereby eliminating any standing to sue (i.e. “interesse ad agire”) in relation to the other.
The case originated from two dismissals for just cause served on a branch manager. The employer had contested two separate disciplinary charges: the first concerning unauthorised absences, and the second concerning irregular use of the company fuel card. At the end of the two disciplinary proceedings, the employer issued two separate dismissal letters, one for each charge. Both letters were received by the employee at the same time.
The employee challenged both dismissals out of court with a single notice, but subsequently brought judicial proceedings only against the first dismissal, and not against the second.
The first-instance court dismissed the claim for “lack of concrete standing to sue”. The Tribunal reasoned that even if the challenged dismissal were found unlawful, the employment relationship would still be deemed terminated due to the second dismissal, which – having not been challenged in court – had become valid, effective, and capable of producing its effects.
The employee appealed the first-instance judgment, raising three grounds of appeal. The core of his defence lay in the first ground, in which he challenged the finding of lack of standing. The appellant argued that the two dismissals, although sent on the same day, had been issued at different times (3:15 p.m. and 3:17 p.m.), thus constituting so-called “successive dismissals”.
Relying on Italian Supreme Court case law (judgments no. 106/2013, no. 1244/2011, and no. 2274/2024), he argued that the second dismissal should be considered tamquam non esset, as it was based on facts already known to the employer at the time of the first dismissal. Therefore, the second dismissal was non-existent, and his interest in obtaining a ruling on the unlawfulness of the first dismissal should be recognised. In the remaining grounds of appeal, he reiterated his arguments on the merits, contesting the factual basis of the alleged unauthorised absences and seeking reinstatement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, holding the first ground unfounded and the others absorbed. The decision rests on a careful analysis of the legal nature of dismissals and the moment at which they take effect.
The central issue in the judgment is the classification of the two dismissals as simultaneous, rather than subsequent.
The Court clarified that the case law on “successive dismissals”, invoked by the appellant, does not apply, as it concerns dismissals served at different and subsequent points in time. To establish simultaneity, the panel identified the legally relevant moment not in the date or time of dispatch of the letters, but in the moment of their receipt by the employee. As dismissals are unilateral receptive acts, their effectiveness depends on when they enter the employee’s sphere of knowledge.
The Court emphasised that: “…this conclusion follows from the fact that the two dismissals affecting the present appellant – although distinct – must be considered simultaneous, and the principles set out in the Supreme Court case law relied upon by the appellant […] cannot apply, as they concern cases of dismissals that are subsequent to one another (so-called ‘successive dismissals’).”
The Court also highlighted that the employee’s own out-of-court challenge, which referred to both dismissals with a single date (28 June 2023) and without distinguishing the time of receipt, further confirmed their simultaneous nature.
On this basis, the Court upheld the correctness of the first-instance judgment. Since the second dismissal (concerning the fuel card) was not challenged in court within the 180-day statutory limitation period, it became final and fully effective in terminating the employment relationship.
This rendered any ruling on the lawfulness of the first dismissal irrelevant. Even if the first dismissal were declared null or unlawful, the employment relationship would in any event be considered terminated by the second dismissal, which had become definitive due to the lack of judicial challenge. Accordingly, the employee no longer had any concrete and current interest in obtaining a judgment on the first dismissal, thus justifying the procedural dismissal of the claim.
With judgment no. 29341 of November 6, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court, Labor Division, confirmed the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal imposed on an employee who refused to report for work at her new place of assignment, reiterating that an employee’s refusal to perform their duties – even when the transfer is disputed. must comply with the principles of fairness and good faith set out in Article 1460, paragraph 2, of the Italian Civil Code.
In the case at hand, the employee, who had been transferred following the closure of her original workplace, was absent from work for several days, refusing to report to the new location and justifying her absence by claiming family difficulties and the alleged unlawfulness of the transfer. The company, deeming her conduct unjustified, imposed disciplinary dismissal.
The Court of Appeal of Rome, confirming the first-instance decision, considered the dismissal lawful. It found that the organizational needs underlying the transfer were documented and uncontested, as the employer no longer had any operational site in the employee’s previous city. The employee, although claiming that she was materially unable to relocate due to family issues, had never provided concrete details regarding such impediments.
The Italian Supreme Court, dismissing the employee’s appeal, reiterated that the unlawfulness of an employer’s decision does not automatically justify the employee’s refusal to perform their work duties, unless such refusal is necessary to avoid serious and immediate harm to the employee’s fundamental rights. Good faith must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the seriousness of the employer’s breach, the employee’s personal and family circumstances, and the impact of the refusal on the company’s organization.
In this case, the Court upheld the assessment of the lower courts. A refusal is justifiable only when there is serious and immediate prejudice to the worker’s fundamental rights, to be evaluated according to the principles of proportionality and good faith.
In the absence of such conditions, as in the present case,the employee’s conduct constitutes a disciplinary breach and justifies dismissal.
In judgment no. 28365 of 27 October 2025, the Court of Cassation, Labour Section, upheld the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal imposed on an employee for the unlawful use of company IT tools. The Supreme Court confirmed the full legitimacy of the employer’s monitoring, as it was carried out in compliance with company policies properly communicated to employees.
The case originated from the summary dismissal imposed in 2021 by the company on an employee responsible for commercial management activities.
The disciplinary measure was based on findings, following IT audits, of repeated unauthorized access to company systems and the transmission to external parties of a large number of files containing clients’ sensitive data.
The employee challenged the dismissal, disputing the legitimacy of the monitoring and claiming that the company laptop subject to the checks was his personal property at the time the data were extracted, and that the inspection activities were in violation of privacy laws and Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute.
The Court of Appeal of Campobasso rejected the appeal, considering the dismissal fully legitimate. The company had demonstrated that the computer was still company property at the time of the checks and that the monitoring had been carried out in compliance with the internal policy, previously communicated to employees, which clearly outlined the purposes, methods, and limits of IT monitoring, as well as the possibility of using the collected data for disciplinary purposes in case of violations.
Read the full version published on Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto de Il Sole 24 ore.
With order no. 27132 of October 9, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court – Labor Division – ruled that a company receiving a “single inspection and notification report” (i.e “verbale unico di accertamento e notificazione”) issued by the Italian Labor Inspectorate has a legitimate interest in bringing an action to annul it, even in the absence of subsequent measures by the Italian National Social Security Institute (i.e. “INPS”), whenever the report contains findings that may lead to social security contribution recoveries.
A company challenged before the Court of first instance of Florence an inspection report issued following checks carried out at one of its construction sites, arguing that the report caused concrete prejudice, particularly concerning its contribution status with the INPS. The first instance Court dismissed the claim as inadmissible for lack of standing, holding that the report had no immediate adverse effects.
The company appealed, but the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision. According to the appellate judges, the Labor Inspectorate’s report merely recorded the alleged violations and forwarded the file to the competent bodies, without creating any concrete contribution obligation: only a subsequent measure by the INPS could have generated an actual and concrete interest in judicial review.
The Supreme Court upheld the company’s appeal, quashed the appellate decision, and remanded the case to the Court of Florence for a new examination. According to the Court, the “single inspection and notification report” cannot be regarded as a neutral act or one without legal effects, as it establishes violations that may lead to contribution recoveries by social security bodies.
Consequently, the employer faces a concrete risk of losing contribution compliance status and, as a result, being unable to obtain the DURC (i.e. “Documento Unico di Regolarità Contributiva”, i.e. the certificate of social security compliance) or to participate in public tenders.
The Court clarified that this reasoning differs from that followed in administrative sanction matters, where the standing to act arises only upon the issuance of the injunction order. In the field of social security, however, Article 24, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree no. 46/1999 expressly recognizes the admissibility of a negative declaratory action against a report containing a contribution claim.
Denying such standing would violate Article 100 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and Article 24 of the Italian Constitution, as it would prevent judicial protection against an act capable of producing adverse legal consequences.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that whenever an inspection report contains findings capable of leading to contribution recoveries, the recipient has a legitimate interest in bringing a negative declaratory action to remove uncertainty regarding the existence and the actual nature of the employment relationship. Such interest is concrete because it serves to prevent the suspension of the right to obtain the DURC and, ultimately, to avoid the emergence of contribution obligations that the employer would subsequently be required to meet.
