With its decision no. 15204 of 20 June 2017, the Court of Cassation intervened in the subject of the disciplinary dismissal of a senior executive without prior application of the procedure referred to in Art. 7 of Italian Law no. 300/1970. The Supreme Court referred to some recent pronouncements, including Plenary Sitting decisions (Cass. No. 2553 of 10 February 2015, Cass. Plen. Sit. No. 7880 of 6-30 March 2007) and clarified that “the procedural guarantees laid down under Art. 7 of Italian Law no. 300/1970 are an expression of the principle of general basic guarantees safeguarding all forms of disciplinary dismissal”, which is applied to all forms of subordinate employment, without making a distinction between employees whatever their position in the hierarchy. A different kind of interpretation would be in contrast with the courts’ decisions on the application of the law, because it would revive “an old and hackneyed notion of a senior executive as an alter ego of the entrepreneur”, and would be in breach of the principle of “audiatur et altera pars”, as a worker’s indefectible guarantee. The Court maintained, moreover, that senior executives are expressly included in the listings in Art. 2095 of the Italian Civil Code and, as such, are included in the regulations governing employees in general. By failing to implement the procedural guarantees referred to in Art.7, the resulting claims will be those laid down in collective labour agreements for unjustified dismissal (payment of an indemnity in lieu of notice and of a supplementary indemnity).

The Court of Cassation, by judgement No. 13799 dated 31 May 2017, intervened in the case of a dismissal for just cause issued against an employee who had posted on Facebook a few comments against her employer company as well as against her legal representative. In the specific case, the company was ordered at the time of the appeal to reinstate the worker and to pay a compensation equal to the remuneration from the date of dismissal to that of reintegration, but it responded by bringing the case to the Court of Cassation, alleging the non-application of the principle of the new art. 18, Law No. 300/1970, which recognizes reintegration protection only in case the material fact on which the dismissal was based does not exist. The company’s objections were deemed unfounded by the Court of Cassation, which, by recalling previous cases in the matter, stated that: “The non-existence of the disputed fact, referred to in art. 18 of the Workers’ Charter as amended by Law No. 92 dated 2012, art. 1, paragraph 42, includes the possibility that the fact did exist but that such fact be unlawful, therefore (even) in such case, the reintegration protection applies”. According to this principle, posting on Facebook opinions against an employer does not necessarily mean that it is unlawful and thus such to legitimise a dismissal for just cause.