In its order no. 26440 dated October 10, 2024, the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, reaffirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal imposed on an employee who had addressed a client in a rude and vulgar manner, once again underscoring the boundaries of judicial review in determining “just cause” for termination.
The judicial proceedings originated from the disciplinary dismissal of an employee assigned to the butcher counter of a supermarket, who had been accused by the employer of addressing an elderly customer with aggressive and inappropriate language.
While the court of first instance upheld the employee’s challenge to the dismissal, the Court of Appeal of Cagliari reversed this decision, confirming the legitimacy of the dismissal order.
In this case, the appellate court considered the employee’s behavior a serious breach of his contractual obligations, particularly the duty to “use courteous manners with the public and maintain a conduct consistent with civic duties,” warranting disciplinary dismissal pursuant to Article 215 of the collective bargaining agreement for employees in the Tertiary, Distribution, and Services sector, which governed the employment relationship.
The Court specifically emphasized the seriousness of the employee’s conduct, noting that the counter attendant, on that occasion, not only failed to apologize to the elderly customer but also escalated the argument with increasingly heated tones, resulting in what was described as “an undignified and somewhat concerning scene.” In assessing the appropriateness of the dismissal, the Court of Appeal also took into account the employee’s prior disciplinary record from the preceding two years. Although these prior incidents were not specifically similar, they highlighted a pattern of repeated non-compliance with company rules, rendering the continuation of the employment relationship unsustainable.
In the ruling under discussion, the Court of Cassation, by rejecting the employee’s appeal against the Cagliari Court’s decision, seized the opportunity to consolidate its stance and reaffirm certain prevailing principles concerning termination for just cause under Article 2119 of the Civil Code.
In particular, the Court of Cassation observed that “just cause,” understood as conduct that precludes even temporary continuation of the employment relationship, falls within the scope of so-called general clauses—normative provisions of limited and general content that require judicial specification in interpretation, “through consideration of both external factors relating to general societal awareness and principles implicitly referenced by the provision itself.”
Continue reading the full public version on Norme e Tributi Plus Lavoro del Il Sole 24 Ore.
Dismissal for a justifiable objective reason is unlawful if the employer does not prove that it has offered the worker lower-level positions, even on a fixed term basis.
Before proceeding with a dismissal for a justified objective reason, the employer must demonstrate that he/she has explored all possible solutions to relocate the worker within the company.
This principle was affirmed by the Italian Court of Cassation, with order no. 18904 of 10 July 2024, thereby reinforcing employers’ repêchage obligations.
Consequently, the Court concluded that dismissal is unlawful where alternative employment positions exist at the time of termination, even in lower or fixed-term jobs, and the employer has not offered these jobs to the employee.
The Court reiterated that the burden of proving that relocation is impossible falls entirely on the employer.
Companies must therefore manage human resources carefully, documenting any attempt at relocation, to avoid a dismissal being held to be unlawful.
Other related insights:
By order no. 10663 of 19 April 2024, the Italian Court of Cassation stated that the employer bears the burden of proof in proving that remuneration has been properly paid.
The worker filed an application for summary judgment to obtain an order against the company to pay the amount indicated in the November 2015 pay slip.
In the first instance, the first instance Court found that the payment was due to the worker.
The company appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision, ruling that the employer had not discharged its burden of proof relating to proving in court that the sum had been paid.
The Italian Court of Cassation – confirming the Court of Appeal decision – preliminarily noted that, once the existence of an employment relationship has been ascertained, the employer is under a strict duty of proof to establish that the remuneration has been paid. The employer can do this by means of the normal documentation i.e., regulatory pay slips bearing the worker’s signature. If the employer cannot prove that it has paid the remuneration due to the employee through pay slips, it must provide appropriate documentation of the relevant payments that it has made in relation to the employee’s individual claims.
According to the Italian Court of Cassation, giving employees at the time of payment of remuneration a statement containing an indication of all the constituent elements of the remuneration does not prove payment where the worker states that it is inconsistent with the remuneration actually paid.
According to the Italian Court of Cassation, the burden falls on the worker only if he/she, after signing the pay slip, alleges that the remuneration indicated in the pay slip is inconsistent with the remuneration paid.
As the present case did not fall within the latter situation, the Italian Court of Cassation rejected the company’s appeal.
Other related insights:
Conciliation agreements negotiated with the help of a union cannot be validly concluded at the company’s headquarters. This is because company headquarters do not fall within “protected locations” (sedi protette) which are neutral and guarantee, together with the assistance provided by the union representative, that the worker is free to make his or her own decisions.
The Italian Court of Cassation affirmed this principle in order no. 10065 of 15 April 2024. This is a more restrictive interpretation than that laid down in order no. 1975 of 18 January 2024. According to the Court the locations selected by the legislator are exhaustive and do not permit substitutes, both because they are directly linked to the body responsible for conciliation and because of the aim of guaranteeing the worker a neutral environment, without employer influence.
Other related insights:
By order no. 10734 of 22 April 2024, the Italian Court of Cassation ruled that, in the event of a failed conciliation attempt, as required under Article 7 of Italian Law no. 604/1966 in the case of dismissal for justified objective reasons of workers hired before March 2015, the employer is not required to send the employee notice of dismissal, as the indication of the intention to interrupt the relationship contained in the minutes drawn up before the Local Employment Inspectorate (Ispettorato Territoriale del Lavoro, ‘ITL’) is sufficient.
As a result of the conciliation attempt held before the ITL under Article 7 of Italian Law no. 604/1966, the minutes of failure to conciliate were drawn up, in which the employer’s intention to proceed with the dismissal of the employee for justified objective reasons was formally stated.
Subsequently, the worker challenged her dismissal, objecting, in the first place, that it was ineffective because it was not in writing.
As part of the so-called ‘summary phase’ of the Fornero Proceedings, as well as in the subsequent opposition phase, the Judge found that the dismissal had not been in writing, with a consequent order against the employer to reinstate the employee.
The employer appealed to the Italian Court of Appeal which overturned the judgment handed down in the context of the opposition phase.
The Italian Court of Appeal ruled, on the one hand, that there had been written notice of dismissal because the intention to terminate the employment relationship was contained in the minutes signed by both parties at the end of the procedure under Article 7 of Italian Law no. 604/1966. However, the Court also held, on the other hand, that as the principle of fairness and good faith had been breached with respect to the choice of the worker to be dismissed, the dismissal was unlawful and made an order against the employer under the provisions of Article 18, paragraph 7, of the Italian Workers’ Charter.
The employee appealed against the judgment before the Italian Court of Cassation and the company, as well as submitting a defence lodged, in turn, a cross-appeal.
The Italian Court of Cassation – in upholding the second instance judgment – noted, first of all, that the purpose of a written notice of dismissal lies in the need to make the employee aware of the action interrupting the relationship.
This function – the Court continued – is fulfilled if the intention to proceed with the termination is formally stated by the employer, in an institutional setting (such as the ITL where the conciliation attempt under Article 7 of Italian Law no. 604/1966 is held), in minutes that are also signed by the employee.
The legislative wording of Article 7, paragraph 6, third sentence of Italian Law no. 604/1966 (“If the conciliation attempt fails and, in any case, the deadline referred to in paragraph 3 has elapsed, the employer may give notice of the dismissal to the worker”) outlines a legal condition (precedent) and a term (dilatory). For this reason, once the first has been fulfilled or the second has expired, the employer “may give the employee notice of the dismissal”.
With regard to the meaning to be attributed to the legal condition precedent (i.e., the failure of the conciliation attempt), according to the Italian Court of Cassation “the literal reading” suggests that the legislator “has given importance to the objective failure of the conciliation attempt rather than to the chronological and formal date of the finalisation of the minutes drawn up in the local conciliation commission”.
Moreover, the Court continues, “the wording of the provision does not require that the notice of dismissal which may be given by employer ‘if the conciliation attempt fails’, must take place in a different context and subsequent to that of the aforementioned minutes”.
In this sense, the Court argues, “nothing to protect the interests of the worker could plausibly justify the assumption that the notice of dismissal to the worker must necessarily take place in a context distinct from the minutes drawn up at the meeting before the appropriate commission, provided of course that the notice of dismissal already stated in that forum complies with the additional provisions on dismissal, starting with that of the [notice being] in writing under Article 2, paragraph 1 of Italian Law no. 604/1966”.
According to the Italian Court of Cassation judges, it follows that, where the conciliation attempt under Article 7 of Italian Law no. 604/1966 fails and the employer confirms his or her intention to terminate the relationship, there is no need to subsequently send the employee a letter of dismissal.
On these grounds, the Italian Court of Cassation therefore rejected the appeal brought by the worker, confirming that she was only entitled to compensation and not reinstatement.
Other related insights:
