By Order of 13 November 2023, no. 31561, the Italian Court of Cassation ruled that, to fully comply with the repêchage obligation (obligation to relocate), it is necessary to assess whether hires made following the termination for justified objective reasons are of the same level of classification as the dismissed employee.
An employee, employed as a cashier in a bar, challenged her dismissal for abolition of her position.
Following the first instance judgment, in which it was ascertained that the termination was unlawful, the employer appealed.
The Territorial Court, reversing the ruling of the court of first instance, held that the dismissal was lawful. The court based this decision on evidence not only of the abolition of the job of cashier, but also of the fact that the worker had always and only performed the duties of cashier, having never performed duties as a counter or table attendant, tasks that were subsequently assigned to newly hired staff.
The judges of second instance also specified that “the fact – which is completely incidental and random – that multiple qualifications are placed in the same level of classification by the collective agreement is of no relevance. This allocation, in fact, is relevant for other purposes, i.e. to identify the regulatory and remuneration regime of the employment relationship of the employees thus classified, but it is completely <neutral>, i.e. irrelevant, for the purposes of the interchangeability of the related tasks”.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was appealed by the employee on several grounds.
The Italian Court of Cassation – accepting the appeal brought by the employee – ruled, preliminarily, that the employer, in fulfilling its repêchage obligation, cannot disregard careful consideration of the national collective bargaining agreement (contratto collettivo nazionale di lavoro, ‘CCNL’) applicable to the employment relationship.
Indeed, according to the judges of the Italian Court of Cassation, in the case of dismissal for justified objective reasons, and in the light of the new Article 2103 of the Italian Civil Code, the reference to the levels of classification described by a collective agreement is a relevant factor.
The Court specified that the CCNL “constitutes a factor that the judge will have to assess to ascertain whether or not the person who was dismissed was, in fact, able – on the basis of objectively verifiable evidence adduced by the employer and having regard to the specific training and entire professional experience of the employee – to carry out the duties of those who were hired ex novo, even if it is at the same or lower level”.
The Court of Cassation, finding no such assessment in the contested judgment on the merits, therefore upheld the employee’s appeal.
Other related insights:
One of the fundamental requirements in the context of disciplinary complaints is consistency between the charge alleged against a worker and the underlying sanction imposed. This principle is aimed at ensuring a fair and just procedure in the context of employment relationships, to prevent the employer from carrying out dismissals based on circumstances over and above or different from those set out in the disciplinary letter.
The recent ruling of the Italian Court of Cassation
The Italian Court of Cassation reiterated the aforementioned principle with Order No. 26042/2023 of 7 September 2023.
The case concerned a worker who had been fired following accusations of forgery and theft of fuel, offences which had simultaneously been the subject of a criminal trial.
The worker, initially dismissed, was subsequently acquitted of these charges in the criminal proceedings, for not having committed the crime.
In the criminal sentence of acquittal, the Court of first instance and the Court of Appeal held the dismissal to be unlawful.
The company challenged the decision before the Italian Court of Cassation, arguing, first, that the requirements under criminal law for the effectiveness of a criminal judgment in civil proceedings were lacking, and, second, that there had been a failure to examine certain additional facts sufficient to irreparably damage the bond of trust with the dismissed worker.
The Court’s decision
The Court of Cassation stated that “in the current procedural system, in the absence of a definitive rule which exhaustively sets out the means of proof, the judge may legitimately use evidence not expressly referred to by law as the basis of his or her decision .” Consequently, in the Court’s opinion, “there is no doubt that the sentence of acquittal for not having committed the crime, even after abridged proceedings, can be classified as atypical evidence of the non-existence of the disciplinary charge falling within the perimeter of the parallel criminal charge, the re-evaluation of which in fact is precluded before the Court of Cassation”.
Furthermore, the Court of Cassation rejected the alleged failure to evaluate “omissions” and “breaches” outside the disciplinary complaint. This is on the basis of the principle that disciplinary complaints may not be changed, which prevents the employer from expanding their scope during the judicial proceedings.
Other related insights:
The Court of Appeal of Trento decided with judgment No. 8 of 6 July 2023 that an employer cannot dismiss a worker suffering from an illness that leads to a disability immediately after exceeding the protected period, but must make reasonable arrangements for the preservation of the job, in compliance with the principles of good faith and fairness. These principles also include informing the employee of the possibility of taking unpaid leave before exceeding the protected period.
The facts of the case
The ruling originates from a judgment of the Court of Rovereto (No. 54 of 2022) which held that a dismissal imposed on a worker suffering from type 2 diabetes, which led to the amputation of a finger, at the end of the maximum period of absence provided for by the National Collective Bargaining Agreement (contratto collettivo nazionale di lavoro, ‘CCNL’), was lawful. The Court held that the dismissal was lawful on the grounds that the worker’s disability had not been certified before the termination of the relationship and that there was no obligation on the employer to inform the employee before the protected period was exceeded.
The worker appealed to the Court of Appeal against the Court of Rovereto’s judgment.
The decision of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion, basing its reasoning on a finding of indirect discrimination against the worker. The Court recalled at the outset the guidance from the European Court of Justice, according to which disability is ‘a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments’ which may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. The definition is, in reality, very broad and independent of the formal recognition of an invalidity ‘understood as a reduction – ascertained by the bodies responsible for this – of working capacity’. In addition, according to the Court, it is necessary to make a distinction between illness and disability, which is characterised by the ‘permanence of the illness and its long duration’.
In the specific case, the judgment referred to the fact that the company had been periodically informed by the worker of his state of illness and that it was in this context that it could have taken ‘appropriate protection initiatives’. The Court held that the fact that the applicable CCNL provided for unpaid leave only at the request of the person concerned does not exclude the employer’s duty to take an active role. The employer should in fact inform the employee of the approaching expiry of the protected period and of the possibility of requesting leave as a form of accommodation. This action would be in line with the principles of fairness and good faith of the employment relationship, even if formally the employee had not yet reached the status of legal disability.
The Court therefore declared the dismissal null and void as discriminatory, as the company did not prove that it had made adequate efforts to reasonably accommodate the employee. The company also did not prove that these measures would have caused serious organisational or financial problems, nor that they would have been disproportionately onerous. As a result, the employee was reinstated in the workplace, with compensation equal to the total remuneration between the date of dismissal and the effective date of reinstatement.
Other Related Insights:
With the recent judgment No. 20284 of 14 July 2023, the Italian Court of Cassation ruled that, even though not specifically provided for in the disciplinary code, breaches by the employee of the fundamental duties underlying the employment relationship are valid grounds for dismissal.
The facts of the case
An employee working as a Level I salesperson was dismissed by the employer company due to his constant failure to meet the production targets periodically set by the company.
The employee challenged the dismissal before the Court, which – by comparing the results achieved by the employee with the targets set by the company schedules – confirmed the unequivocal poor production performance of the worker. Therefore, the Judge hearing the case declared the dismissal to be lawful, classifying it as dismissal for a justified subjective reason.
The worker appealed the ruling before the Rome Court of Appeal, where he argued that the dismissal was unlawful due to the failure to display the disciplinary code in the company.
In this regard, the Court, in upholding the judgment of first instance, held that the failure to display the disciplinary code in the company was irrelevant for the purposes of determining the nature of the dismissal, since the worker was charged with negligent and inexperienced failure to fulfil his obligations under the employment contract, and that the dismissal was based on the worker’s poor production performance resulting from his constant failure to comply with the work schedules previously established.
For the Court, moreover, for the purposes of assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, previous disciplinary records that indicate the worker’s repeated offences must also be taken into account.
The worker therefore challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Italian Court of Cassation.
The decision of the Italian Court of Cassation
When confronted with the issue, the Italian Court of Cassation confirmed the rulings of the lower courts on the lawfulness of the dismissal.
First of all, the Judges of the Italian Court of Cassation reiterate that the power to terminate the employment contract in the event of significant breach of contractual obligations stems directly from the law (Article 3 of Italian Law No. 604 of 1966) and does not require, in order for it to be lawfully exercised, a detailed provision, in the collective bargaining agreement or in the company disciplinary regulations, of every possible instance of conduct constituting the above requirement. Indeed, it is for the judge to verify, if the lawfulness of the termination is contested, whether the alleged incidents constitute a legal case of non-performance.
For this reason, continues the Court, even if not specifically provided for by the contractual provisions, serious breaches of the fundamental duties associated with the employment relationship constitute grounds for valid notice of withdrawal; in particular, those duties that underpin the existence of the employment relationship, such as the duties imposed by Articles 2104 and 2105 of the Italian Civil Code (obligations of diligence and loyalty) as well as those deriving from company policies.
Therefore, according to the Italian Court of Cassation, with regard to disciplinary sanctions, a distinction must be made between offences relating to the breach of specific rules concerning company organisation and production methods, which can only be recognised insofar as they are expressly provided for, and offences relating to conduct that is manifestly contrary to the duties of workers and the interests of the company, for which specific inclusion in the disciplinary code is not required.
With regard to the disciplinary code, the judges reiterate that it must, in any event, be drafted in such a manner as to make the cases of infringement clear, although by providing an outline and not a detailed description, and to indicate the corresponding penalties, albeit in a general manner and which can be adapted based on the actual and specific non-compliance.
Ultimately, therefore, the aforementioned judgments uphold the lawfulness of the employer’s termination of employment even where the alleged breach of contract does not constitute a case that is expressly set out in the company’s disciplinary code or in the national collective bargaining agreement, but takes place by infringing the duties underlying the employment relationship.
Other related insights:
By order No. 12241 of 9th May, the Labour Division of the Court of Cassation decided on the validity of disciplinary termination of an employee of an IT company who had refused to further study certain operating systems and to update the programmes used by a client. In the case at hand, the judge of the merits had found that the worker had refused to take the training as directed by his immediate supervisor, although the participation in the professional development courses would not have caused him to bear any expenses, use leave days or sacrifice his free time. The passivity and non-cooperation of the employee was also ascertained, in that he had refused to update operating systems at a client’s premises. On these grounds, the Court of Cassation held that the company had lawfully communicated the disciplinary dismissal with prior notice; in the Court’s view, the worker’s behaviour amounted to serious insubordination, as it was in clear contrast with the duty of diligence, to be understood, in the case at hand, as also referred to the professional development required for employee profitability.
