Case Law

With ruling no. 25674 of 9 October 2014, filed on 4 December 2014, the Cassation Court once again intervened on the issue of control performed by employers using investigation agencies, confirming its legality when performed to protect company assets, as long as the investigation agency's control is limited "to illegal acts performed by employees not solely linked to mere failure to fulfil an obligation".

In Judgment No. 24525/2014, the Court of Cassation held that it is permissible to reinstate a dismissal voided for failure to observe the respite period by issuing a new act of dismissal based on the same conditions, where the employee gives notice of a new period of illness.

In Judgment No. 46820, entered last 12 November, the Court of Cassation held that obligations of supervision and control imposed on employers are not diminished with the appointment of a health and safety officer (Rssp), whose role is to provide direct assistance in support of, and not in substitution of, the employer in identifying risk factors.

In a ruling of 27 October 2014, the Court of Rome affirmed that the obligation to give a second change to employees dismissed for objectively justified reasons is not breached in the case of a temporary hiring one month before dismissal.

In its Judgment No. 19665 of 18 September 2014, the Court of Cassation, sitting in plenary session, resolved the conflict in case law concerning the obligation to pay civil penalties on social insurance contributions owed by the employer in the case of unlawful redundancy.

In its Judgment No. 22388 of 22 October 2014, the Court of Cassation held that the principle under which no legal action can be instituted twice for the same cause of action is also applicable to labour relations, including disciplinary proceedings taken against workers.

In its Judgment No. 20949 of 3 October 2014, the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal brought by a worker who sought classification as a manager, together with the corresponding pay difference.

Court of Cassation, judgment no. 20106 of September 24, 2014, has stated again the principle according to which for the calculation of the period of job preservation in the case of illness also public holidays have to be included when illness occurred also in the day after or before it, because a continuing illness event is presumed to occur.