The Supreme Court, by its decision no. 24473 of 12 October 2024, ruled that individual abstentions<\/p>\n\n\n\n
from work could not be qualified as a strike. The decision came after the rejection of the appeal<\/p>\n\n\n\n
filed by some employees against a disciplinary sanction imposed by a highway company following<\/p>\n\n\n\n
two days of unjustified absence. The Court of Appeal had upheld the lawfulness of the sanction on<\/p>\n\n\n\n
the grounds that the workers’ absence had not been supported by a trade union declaration, which<\/p>\n\n\n\n
is a necessary condition for the abstention to be classified as a strike. In particular, the Court of<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First Instance had pointed out that in the absence of a formal notification from a trade union<\/p>\n\n\n\n
announcing the starting time of the strike and in the absence of collective deliberation, the<\/p>\n\n\n\n
workers’ behaviour had to be considered as an individual decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The workers challenged the decision, arguing that the right to strike could be exercised without a<\/p>\n\n\n\n
trade union declaration. However, the Supreme Court stated that although the right to strike is an<\/p>\n\n\n\n
individual right, it is essential that it is collectively agreed in the event of a conflict situation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
involving the protection of a collective interest. Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the<\/p>\n\n\n\n
appeal and declared the sanction lawlful.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court, by its decision no. 24473 of 12 October 2024, ruled that individual abstentions from work could not be qualified as a strike. The decision came after the rejection of the appeal filed by some employees against a disciplinary sanction imposed by a highway company following two days of unjustified absence. The Court ….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":19212,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[897,81,3,90],"tags":[538,437],"class_list":["post-19215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-publications-2-en","category-dlp-insights-en","category-news-en","category-publications-en","tag-court-of-cassation","tag-dismissal"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n