The use of mobile phones in the workplace can constitute just cause for dismissal
The Court of Parma, in ruling No. 541 on September 18, 2025, deemed the dismissal for just cause of an employee who used his mobile phone while performing his work duties to be legitimate.
The case in question involves a worker responsible for moving goods using specific machinery who, while operating this equipment, was watching a video on his phone and listening to audio through earbuds that were placed beneath the necessary earpieces for performing his work. When asked by a supervisor to stop using the mobile phone and to hand it over, the employee refused to comply with this directive and continued to carry out his activities with the earphones and mobile phone.
According to the judges, the worker’s behavior not only represented a clear violation of the duty of diligence in fulfilling his work responsibilities but also violated common safety regulations, as the use of personal earbuds prevented the employee from hearing essential instructions for performing his job, as well as external noises and possible alarm signals from other employees in the aisles. Additionally, the judges criticized the conduct of the employee, who, attempting to hide the earbuds, demonstrated full awareness of the violation he was committing, thereby attributing greater severity to the disciplinary issues in question.
In light of the above, the Court of Parma rejected the employee’s appeal, upholding the legitimacy of the dismissal for just cause due to the irreparable breach of the trust relationship with the employer.
Fixed-term contract: the clause lacking specificity is null
The case originates from a judicial appeal filed by an employee who had worked for approximately 2 years under a fixed-term contract justified by the company’s need for employees to use up accrued vacation and leave hours, without any further specification.
The Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, with sentence No. 958 of 20 September 2025, ruled the term imposed on the aforementioned employment contract as null, highlighting that, in the context of fixed-term contracts justified by the replacement of employees, the reasons necessitating the replacement must be specified within the contract to ensure the effectiveness of the reason for the term.
According to the judges, it is possible to establish a fixed-term contract for the need to replace not just a single person but a specific productive function, however, in this case, the following elements must be clearly stated: “the relevant territorial scope, the location of the work performance, the tasks of the employees to be replaced, and their right to job retention“. These elements allow for the identification of the number of workers to be replaced, regardless of identifying the names of the individuals, and to ascertain the existence of the justifying reason for the term.
Ministry of Labor and Social Policies: Validation of parental worker resignations during the probationary period is necessary
With note No. 14744/2025, the Ministry of Labor and Social Policies has provided clarifications regarding the validation of resignations presented during the probationary period by parental workers.
As is well known, the fourth paragraph of Article 55 of Legislative Decree No. 151/2001 establishes the obligation of validation at the Labor Inspectorate in the event of consensual termination of the employment relationship or resignation requests submitted by a female worker during pregnancy, or by a working parent during the first three years of the child’s life (or in the first three years of welcoming an adopted minor or in foster care, or, in the case of international adoption, within the first three years from the communications referred to in Article 54, paragraph 9).
As clarified in the note in question, this obligation is part of a broader regulatory framework aimed at protecting the rights of parental workers “at a particularly delicate moment in family life” and represents “an important guarantee tool for the freedom of choice of the female or male worker.”.
The Ministry of Labor and Social Policies, in the note of October 13, 2025, has clarified that the validation obligation must also be applied when resignations are submitted during the probationary period.
This orientation is based, according to the ministerial note, both on the literal wording of the aforementioned article, which does not explicitly exclude the probationary period, and on the interpretation of the norm, which aims to ensure “a wide-ranging operability of this protective tool” in order to avoid discriminatory dismissals against parental workers.
The employer engaging in different economic activities must apply the relevant national collective bargaining agreement to employees based on the tasks performed
With order No. 27719 of October 17, 2025, the Court of Cassation intervened in the matter of collective bargaining following a complaint filed by several employees who claimed the application of the same national collective bargaining agreement used for other employees of the company performing the same activities.
In the case at hand, the employer, engaged in different economic activities, was registered with multiple trade associations and arbitrarily applied different collective agreements to the workers, regardless of the tasks they performed.
According to the Supreme Court, accepting the request made by the workers, while there is a bargaining autonomy for the employer in choosing the applicable NCBA for their employees, in cases where the employer’s company performs distinct activities, it is necessary to apply the collective agreement consistent with the activities performed by the workers, to avoid inequities in the treatment of employees.
STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LEGAL NEWS. CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE!