The competent jurisdiction is the place where the contract was concluded or the business premises where the worker is assigned
With ruling No. 315 of June 5, 2025, the Vicenza Court clarified that when the work activity can be carried out in any location, without revealing any subjective or objective links at the worker’s residence that would characterize that residence as a business dependency and thus anchor the work activity to that place, there is no sufficient connection to identify the territorial competence at the place of residence. In such a case, therefore, the territorially competent forum is the place of contract conclusion or the business premises where the worker is assigned.
The dismissal of the employee who uses, for personal purposes, the personal data taken from a CV sent to the company is justified
With ruling No. 302 of April 24, 2025, the Milan Court of Appeal confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal of the worker who, assigned to the management and sorting of internal company mail, during the performance of his duties, intercepted a candidate’s CV and retrieved her cell phone number, then sent her a series of messages via WhatsApp, clearly for personal purposes. Following appropriate investigations, the company initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee, which resulted in the dismissal for just cause. The worker then appealed to the Milan Court arguing the illegitimacy of the dismissal, claiming it was disproportionate to the conduct adopted. The Milan Court of Appeal, confirming the first-instance ruling and thus the legitimacy of the dismissal for just cause, clarified that the employee’s conduct constituted an irreparable breach of the trust relationship and was deemed intolerable in light of the employee’s over twenty-year tenure, as well as the undeniable damage to the company’s image and reputation.
The transfer of a dematerialized business branch is legitimate if it consists of workers with specific, independent, and distinctive know-how
The Supreme Court clarified that for the transfer of a business branch under Article 2112 of the Civil Code to be considered legitimate, it is necessary that the transferred branch respects the concept of a business, presenting that functional autonomy necessary to carry out entrepreneurial activities in the market. In this case, the employees contested the transfer of the business branch in which they performed their work, claiming the nullity of the transfer due to the lack of autonomy of the transferred branch and the absence of the branch preceding the transfer. The Court of Appeal, confirming the first-instance decision, ruled that the transfer of the business branch was ineffective against the employees appealing. The Supreme Court, with ruling No. 17201 of May 26, 2025, further confirmed what was already asserted by the lower judges, recognizing that even a “dematerialized” business branch transfer is legitimate, provided the group of transferred employees, at the time of the split, expresses a homogeneous and cohesive professionalism through a specific and peculiar know-how.
The limit of six monthly payments established for the indemnity protection of the worker unlawfully dismissed from a company with up to 15 employees is unconstitutional
The Constitutional Court proclaimed the illegitimacy of Article 9, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 23/2015, insofar as it limits the indemnity protection due to a worker unfairly dismissed from a company with fewer than 15 employees to a maximum of 6 monthly payments of the last reference salary for calculating the severance pay. According to the Court, the small difference between the minimum and maximum indemnity amounts due to an unfairly dismissed employee from a company below that threshold results in the impossibility of guaranteeing an adequate personalization of the damage, given the difficulty for judges to adequately proportion the indemnity due to the worker based on the greater or lesser severity of the unlawful dismissal. In light of the ruling in question, in the case of unlawful dismissal, an employee of a small business will be entitled to maximum compensation that is no longer limited to 6 months’ pay, but rather extended to a maximum compensation of 18 months’ pay, which is halved compared to what is entitled to an employee of a company with more than 15 employees.
STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LEGAL NEWS. CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE!
