The Ministry of Labour and Social Policies has published on its institutional website a Vademecum providing guidelines for the management of workers who are exposed (indoors and outdoors) to high temperatures during the summer period. The preamble states that “in the light of climate change scenarios, the protection of workers from temperature-related accident risks is considered a priority”.

Among the suggestions provided, if technical measures to reduce the risk cannot be implemented, the employer may put in place additional  organizational measures such as the agile working, which, therefore, is a measure to be applied for the protection of the worker. In addition to the above, it is worth mentioning that, in the Official Gazette No. 175 of last  July 28, it has been published the Decree-Law No. 98 of  July 28, 2023 on “Urgent measures for the protection of workers in the event of a climatic emergency and payment terms”, which, among others, extends to certain sectors the Ordinary Lay-off Procedure (in Italian, Cassa Integrazione Guadagni Ordinaria, “CIGO“), already in force for all the other sectors to which it applies.

With its judgement No. 53285 dated 23 November 2017, the Court of Cassation confirmed some fundamental principles regarding administrative liability pursuant to Legislative Decree 231/2001 and safety in the workplace. In particular, according to the Court of Cassation, the pre-requisites for the administrative liability for advantages or in the interest of the entity (i) must refer to the conduct and not to the event and (ii) be alternative and concurring with each other, “as the criterion of interest expresses an assessment of the teleological crime, appreciable ex ante, that is at the time of the occurring of the fact, according to a subjective opinion while the advantage criterion has a mainly objective connotation, which can be assessed ex post, on the basis of the effects derived from the occurring of the offence” . Finally, in the judgement, it is reaffirmed, on the basis of a previous orientation, that it does not matter how small the advantage or interest is for they do not represent exemption from the liability of the entity. In view of the above, the Court, in the case submitted for its review, linked the employer’s administrative liability to the unsuitability of the DVR (Risk Assessment Document) adopted and to the inadequacy of the training and information activities provided to the employee who was the victim of serious personal injuries, whereas with reference to the advantage/interest of the entity it highlighted “the incidence of the company’s unfair practice ascertained on the expenses/profit ratio”.