Case Law

The Court of Cassation has clarified that, in terms of accidents due to an on the job cause, the employee who asks the court for equitable damages has the onus of precisely proving the facts resulting in such right, demonstrating that the claimed injury is the result of the concrete procedures for performing the duties related to the held position, variable in relation to the work site, shift and work environment.

The Cassation has established that a partner in a partnership may also assume the role of employee as long as: a) the contribution of work is not supplied for the purposes of partner contribution and, b) the work relationship has the nature of employment, that it entails the requirement subjecting the worker to management, organisational ....

The Court of Cassation has stated that mobbing is considered “conduct by a supervisor which is systematic and lasts over time which entails repeated hostile behaviour within the work environment, leading to forms of abuse of power or psychological persecution, and may result in the moral humiliation and alienation of the employee”.

The 4th Penal Section of the Cassation Court has established that the “contractor” employer shall be liable for accidents of its employees if it has not informed them of the dangers and measures to avoid them and if it has not monitored to ensure that such measures have not been applied.

The Court of Milan has established that the termination of a coordinated, ongoing project-based contract is valid when the project in question has been completed, and that any claim to extend the self-employment contract due to maternity, for a period beyond the project completion date is without grounds.

By sentence under art. 669-sexies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, confirmed by the Court at appeal stage on 31 March 2009, the Court of Trento has ordered an employee to disclose to the employer the access password to folders on his PC and to areas of the company server to which he has reserved access, on the grounds that use of the instruments was for professional purposes only.

The Court of Cassation has established that dismissal of an employee for unjustified absence is lawful where the employee fails to take up service at the workplace to which he has agreed to be transferred.

The Court of Cassation has clarified that for the purpose of legal secondment of an employee from the seconding company to that benefiting of the secondment, a specific interest of the employer is necessary in order to qualify the secondment as an organisational action by the seconding company, therefore resulting in a mere amendment to the modalities in which the work performance is given, and that the move is essentially temporary.