Case Law

Court of Cassation, labor section, with the sentence no.18927/12, published on November 5, stated that, even if the mobbing claimed by the employee does not exist, the possibility that the employer could be sentenced to pay damages in favor of the employee for single oppressive behaviors, ascertained during the proceeding, cannot be excluded at all, though there is no uniqueness of the persecutory plan against the employee.

Court of Cassation, with the sentence no. 16375/2012, stated the lawfulness of the dismissal of an employee who works, even just for one day, during sickness leave, though in our legislation a prohibition to work during this period, also in favor of a third party, does not exist. In fact, the possible dismissal is lawful when the behavior of the employee is in breach of the general rules of correctness and good faith and to the contractual obligations of diligence and faithfulness.

Constitutional Court stated the constitutional unlawfulness, due to an excess of legislative delegation, of the part of Legislative Decree no. 28/2010 concerning the compulsoriness of the mediation.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 34747, filed on September 11, stated that the employer is not liable in case of employees’ work accident, just if he/she exactly checked the fulfillment on the security measures.

The Court of Cassation, labor section, with the sentence no. 16622/2012, stated that the dismissal of a call center operator for road service is unlawful because the employer may not monitor his/her calls.

The Court of Cassation, Labour Section, with sentence No. 16460/2012, has granted the paid leave of three days to the father of a disabled son even if the mother is a housewife and the request is related to a period before the coming into effect of the law which provides this possibility.

In case of dismissal declared unlawful damages refund for the dismissed employee has to be adapted to the number of salaries which should have been accrued until the day when the indemnity in lieu of re-hiring has been paid and not until the date when the employee asks for economical refund in place of re-employment.

The Sixth Section of the Supreme Court, with sentence No. 34505, clarified that both the interdicted measures and the real ones provided for by the Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 (in particular, the confiscation provided for by Article 53 of the mentioned Decree) are “intended to anticipate the application of major and mandatory sanctions, which are subjected to the verification of the liability of the company”.