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:
In recent years, terms such as smart working, agile working or workation have become firmly established in the working lexicon. These new ways of working bring with them opportunities and competitiveness, but also new responsibilities and risks, especially in terms of health and safety.
The concept of a “workplace” is no longer only linked to a physical company space. It can be one’s own home, a second home, a library or a coworking space. However, the dematerialisation of work space raises questions: how should security be managed?
Agile work, regulated by Law No. 81/2017, requires the worker to cooperate in the implementation of preventive measures prepared by the employer. The legislator, in fact, has not provided for a transfer of the burden of prevention and self-protection onto the worker.
The phenomenon of workation – from the combination of “work” and “vacation” – is perhaps the most significant representation. More and more people are choosing to work from holiday locations and more and more companies are granting it. The objective? To combine productivity and well-being. But in these cases the risks can be even more complex: inadequate facilities, unstable connections, ergonomically incorrect workstations, social isolation, confusion between working time and leisure time.
The employer always remains at the centre as the main person responsible for the health and safety of company staff. Prevention and Protection Services and Workers’ Safety Representatives must adapt their activities to a (physically) distributed work population, using digital tools to monitor risks and involve workers.
Continue reading the full version published on Itali Oggi.
Managing employee surveillance is a sensitive issue, especially with the rise of new technologies. Recent rulings from Italy’s Court of Cassation have clarified the legal boundaries surrounding this practice.
The role of Investigative Agencies
Employers may use private investigators to check potential employee misconduct, such as unapproved absences or misuse of leave. However, these investigations must be focused, proportional, and lawful, ensuring they do not interfere with an employee’s work duties.
Monitoring company devices
Employers may need to access employees’ devices, such as emails or laptops, especially when there is reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The Italian Supreme Court has recently clarified that checking an employee’s email is only permitted when there is concrete suspicion, and such checks must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Balancing business needs and employee privacy
It is essential to strike a balance between business needs and employee privacy. Surveillance must be justified, proportionate, and never indiscriminate. Employers must ensure they follow legal guidelines to avoid misuse of the information collected.
Best practices
By following these principles, employers can protect their business interests while respecting employee privacy.
Continue reading the full version published on Agenda Digitale.
Exceeding the sick leave period represents a delicate balance between employee rights and business needs. Over the years, case law has provided important guidance on the matter. What checks must the employer carry out, and what are the employee’s responsibilities?
The issue of exceeding the sick leave period is a key aspect of human resource management. On the one hand, employees suffering from serious or prolonged illnesses need sufficient time off to recover without losing their job. On the other hand, businesses must ensure operational continuity and may struggle to manage prolonged absences.
Managing the exceeding of the sick leave period requires a balanced and careful approach. Employers must verify compliance with contractual regulations and act in good faith, avoiding hasty or discriminatory measures.
Employees, in turn, have a duty to properly communicate their condition and comply with the rules set by their contract and the law. Over time, case law has provided essential guidance to balance these interests. However, only a case-by-case assessment can ensure the right equilibrium between employee protection and business needs.
The accrual period is mainly regulated by Article 2110 of the Civil Code, which states that in the event of illness, the employee has the right to keep his job for a period determined by collective agreements. Once this limit has been exceeded, the employer may terminate the relationship, subject to the right to compensation for notice.
Moreover, Law 300/1970 (Workers’ Statute) in Article 18 goes into the merits of the termination of employment: the rule protects the worker from dismissals announced in violation of Article 2110, second paragraph, of the Civil Code, providing the right to reinstatement in the workplace.
Over the years, several Supreme Court rulings have made headlines regarding the exceeding of the sick leave period and have clarified that the employer must consider the specific situation of the employee and evaluate possible alternatives before proceeding with dismissal.
In addition to the case that gained media attention of an employee dismissed when only a few days remained before the end of the sick leave period (Supreme Court Ruling No. 24766/2017), here are some rulings that have made history:
To avoid legal disputes, the employer must carry out careful checks before taking disciplinary measures. In particular, they must:
Continue reading the full version published on HR Link.
