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.
With the recent ruling no. 11344 dated April 30, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court clarified that judicial proceedings initiated under the so-called “Fornero” procedure prior to February 28, 2023, continue to be governed—even in the appeal stages—by the provisions established by that procedure, notwithstanding its repeal under the so-called “Cartabia” reform.
The dispute originated from the challenge to a dismissal brought by a worker employed before March 2015 and thus covered by the protections of Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute (i.e. “Statuto dei Lavoratori”).
To fully understand the matter and the reasoning set forth by the Supreme Court in the ruling under review, it is necessary to reconstruct the procedural phases, including their chronological sequence.
The dismissal was challenged in October 2021 by filing a claim pursuant to Article 1, paragraphs 47 et seq., of Law no. 92/2012 (the so-called Fornero law). By order dated November 9, 2022, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claim, thus concluding the preliminary phase. The employee then filed an opposition against this order, which the Court of first istance rejected by judgment dated June 6, 2023.
About six months later, on December 1, 2023, the claimant lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal, submitting an appeal (rather than the prescribed complaint) against the Court of first istance judgment following the opposition phase.
The Court of Appeal declared the appeal late and thus inadmissible, as it was filed within six months instead of within the thirty-day term required for the complaint.
The Court of first istance interpreted Articles 35 and 37 of Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022—which regulate, respectively, the transitional discipline and the repeal of the Fornero procedure—holding that the repeal applies only to proceedings initiated after February 28, 2023, and that the case at hand, having been initiated prior to that date, remained governed by the previous procedural provisions, namely Article 1, paragraphs 47 et seq., of Law no. 92/2012.
Against this ruling, the employee appealed to the Supreme Court, advancing a single ground of appeal.
The claimant argued that, once the repeal of the Fornero procedure was enacted by the Cartabia reform, the complaint procedure could no longer survive.
This argument was based on the combined reading of the first and fourth paragraphs of Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Cartabia reform, which—as noted—govern the transitional phase between the old and the new procedural rules.
Specifically, the first paragraph provides that, “unless otherwise provided,” the new provisions apply to proceedings initiated after February 28, 2023; the claimant interpreted an exception to this rule in the subsequent fourth paragraph of the same Article 35, which states that the new provisions “apply to appeals filed after February 28, 2023.”
The Italian Supreme Court, rejecting the employee’s appeal, confirmed the correctness of the lower courts’ interpretation.
Starting from a literal analysis of the legislative amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the new provisions to appeals filed after February 28, 2023, is limited to those governed by the ordinary civil procedure (namely, Chapters I and II of Title III, Book II of the Italian Code of Civil procedure) and to those relating to the generality of labor disputes subject to the ordinary labor procedure (Articles 434, 436-bis, 437, and 438 of the Code of Civil procedure).
Article 35, paragraph 4, does not extend its scope to the complaint, which is a specific form of appeal within the so-called Fornero procedure, a procedure to which Article 35 makes no reference.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that this interpretation is consistent with the general principle of perpetuatio iurisdictionis, according to which civil proceedings are governed in their entirety by the procedure in force at the time the claim is filed. The principle of “tempus regit actum”, which means that supervening laws apply immediately to procedural acts considered individually, does not apply to the entire set of systematically organized procedural rules guiding the judicial decision, as this would violate the principle of non-retroactivity of the law set forth in Article 11 of the preliminary provisions to the Civil Code, of which Article 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an expression.
It follows that proceedings pending under the Fornero Procedure as of February 28, 2023, remain governed—even during the appeal phase—by the provisions laid down in Article 1, paragraphs 47 et seq., of Law no. 92 of 2012, whose repeal (Article 37, Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022) applies only to proceedings initiated after February 28, 2023.
Other related insights:
On 8 and 9 June, citizens will be called upon to cast their votes on the five abrogative referendums on labour and citizenship promoted by the CGIL in July 2024.
After passing the Court of Cassation’s scrutiny in December 2024, in February of this year the referendum requests were also given the green light by the Constitutional Court, which deemed them in conformity with the law and declared them admissible.
Of the five referendum questions, the four on labour issues concern, in particular
the regulation of the ‘Contract of employment with increasing protections
the maximum measure of compensation for unlawful dismissal in “small enterprises”;
the a-causality regime for fixed-term contracts;
the joint and several liability of the principal for compensation for damages in the event of accidents at work related to the specific activity of the contractor.
Continue reading the full version published on The Platform.
With the recent ruling no. 9282 of April 8, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that the legislation on individual dismissals (Law 604/1966, amended in 2010) applies to probationary employees only when the employment becomes permanent or at least six months have passed since the start of the employment relationship.
A company decided to terminate the employee’s contract during the probationary period for failing to pass the probationary evaluation.
The employee contested the probationary termination in compliance with the extrajudicial appeal period, requesting a conciliation attempt (which was rejected by the employer), but failed to respect the deadline for filing the judicial appeal.
The Court of Appeal of Venice, confirming the first-instance judgment, ruled that the employee’s appeal was filed beyond the expiration period set forth by Article 6 of Law 604/1966. According to this rule, a dismissal appeal is ineffective if not followed by the filing of the judicial appeal within sixty days after the failure of the conciliation attempt.
The employee appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Italian Supreme Court, arguing that Law 604/1966 was not applicable in this case, as Article 10 of the same law (amended by Law 183/2010) states that dismissal regulations apply only once the employment becomes permanent or at least six months have passed from the beginning of the employment relationship.
The Italian Supreme Court, in ruling no. 9282/2025, upheld the employee’s appeal, stating that the judges of the court of first instance had erroneously applied the individual dismissal regulations (Article 6 of Law 604/1966) without considering the specific nature of the probationary employment relationship.
The Supreme Court clarified that termination during the probationary period does not fall under the statutory deadlines for dismissals as established by Article 6 of Law 604/1966 and Article 32 of Law 183/2010.
This is due to the fact that the probationary agreement has a distinct nature, intended to allow both parties to evaluate the mutual suitability of the employment relationship, and as such, it is governed by a more flexible framework.
In these situations, the Supreme Court explained, the standard five-year statute of limitations applies, rather than the more rigid deadlines set for ordinary dismissals.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and sent the case back to the Court of first-instance for further consideration, taking into account the specific circumstances surrounding the termination during the probationary period.
Other related insights:
With ruling no. 7615 of April 15, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal of an employee who had exceeded the maximum period of sick leave (i.e. “periodo di comporto” – the maximum duration of illness-related absence beyond which the employment relationship may be lawfully terminated), despite the employer’s earlier refusal to grant her a leave request.
In the case under consideration, the employee had initially requested vacation leave at a time when she was not suffering from any illness. Shortly afterward, however, she entered a new period of sick leave, ultimately leading to the exhaustion of the sick leave period. The vacation had been requested during a time of reduced staffing, with three out of seven employees already absent. Based on these organizational needs, the employer denied the request.
The Supreme Court found that two key conditions were not met: the vacation was not requested during an active period of illness, and the employee had not asked to use the vacation time to interrupt the running of the sick leaveperiod. Once the new illness began, the employee also made no attempt to interrupt the period using her previous request for leave.
The justices reiterated that vacation leave may suspend the sick leaveperiod only under specific circumstances – when the leave is requested during a period of illness, or when illness arises during already approved vacation.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the employer acted lawfully in refusing the vacation request. Since no illness was reported at the time of the request, Article 2109 of the Italian Civil Code applied, giving the employer the authority to determine the timing of vacation leave, balancing business needs with employee interests.
As a result of the above, the dismissal was deemed lawful.
Other related insights:
