Case Law

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”.

The Supreme Court, with ordinance No. 14861 of September 5, 2012, has confirmed that the notification of the verification notice of the Italian Revenue Agency by mail has to be proved through the acknowledgment receipt of the registered letter, since it is not sufficient a specific certification of the postal service.

Supreme Court with sentence no. 22611 of June 11 has stated that employees’ videosurveillance after their express approval for video cameras installation is not a crime, also without an agreement with the internal unions or internal commissions.

The Supreme Court, with sentence no. 14157/2012, stated that the employer’s decision to substitute employees on strike with employees not on strike or belonging to divisions not interested by the strike does not represent an anti-union behavior if such decision concerning the company structure and the employees’ duties distribution is in line with law and the collective agreement.

Supreme Court, with sentence no. 14197 of August 7, 2012 has established that companies can use private investigators in order to verify if employees commit a crime and that such investigations can concern the employees only and not their cars or bags.

The Court of Cassation, with sentence No. 4709/2012, stated that the employee may refuse to execute his/her working activity if the transfer measure is not properly motivated.