“Private” WhatsApp chats and dismissal: the Italian Supreme Court confirms that the private nature of messaging does not exclude the disciplinary relevance of the employee’s conduct.
A post office branch manager posted a message in a WhatsApp group chat with her colleagues in which she sharply criticised her superior, disclosed confidential internal procedures and, most notably, explained to the other colleagues how to circumvent them. The content of the conversation was subsequently made public on a third party’s Facebook page, which was freely accessible. Following the publication on the social media platform, the company proceeded to dismiss the employee.
The Italian Supreme Court, by decision no. 7982 of 31 March 2026, affirmed the principle that the private nature of WhatsApp messaging does not exclude the disciplinary relevance of the statements made therein, “where they are marked by the intent to harm the reputation of the employer and of colleagues, to disclose confidential information, or to indicate ways to circumvent procedures prescribed by the employer company”.
Two aspects deserve particular attention: (i) the subjective element, which splits between the declarative conduct — intentional, since deliberately directed at the participants in the chat — and the foreseeability of the external spreading, attributable to the employee on grounds of negligence, without any need to prove the intent to share and spread it; (ii) the role and position of the employee, with the severity of the sanction justified by the senior role, the intensity of the breaches of fiduciary duties, and the potential harm caused to the safety measures imposed by law.
The lawful use of data collected through badges: badge-based monitoring falls within paragraph 2 of Article 4 of Law n. 300/1970, and the Italian Supreme Court allows the full use of such data for disciplinary purposes.
By ruling no. 7985 of 31 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court confirms what is provided for by the relevant legislation, namely that the instruments for recording access and attendance are not subject to the obligation set out in paragraph 1, on the understanding that data collected through badge-based monitoring may be lawfully used for disciplinary purposes where the two conditions laid down in the subsequent paragraph 3 are met: (i) adequate information must be provided to the employee on the methods of use of the instruments and of carrying out the controls; (ii) the data protection legislation must be complied with.
Health and safety on the job: from April 7, 2026, new measures for all businesses
From April 7, 2026, the provisions of Law No. 34/2026 have come into force, amending Legislative Decree 81/2008 (Consolidated Act on Health and Safety at Work) on several fronts. The new measures concern all businesses, not only Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs).
The most significant amendment concerns smart working: the new paragraph 7-bis of Article 3 of the Consolidated Act requires the employer to provide, on at least an annual basis, a written information notice to the employee and to the Workers’ Safety Representative (RLS) on the general and specific risks of work performed outside company premises, with particular regard to the use of display screen equipment. Failure to provide the notice is punishable by imprisonment of two to four months or by a fine ranging from € 1,708.61 to € 7,403.96.
The other innovations concern practical training, which can now also be delivered through real or virtual simulation technologies, and the obligation to provide safety training even during wage supplementation (CIG) periods.
Lastly, for micro-enterprises and SMEs, INAIL is required to develop, by 5 August 2026, simplified models for the organisation and management of safety, in agreement with the comparatively most representative organisations, with the task of supporting companies in their adoption from a managerial and operational standpoint.
Workplace harassment: even without mobbing, the employer pays. The Italian Supreme Court holds the company liable for failing to protect an employee persecuted by his colleagues.
The Italian Supreme Court, by ruling no. 5436 of 11 March 2026, has affirmed an important principle for the protection of employees subjected to harassment by their colleagues: it is the employer who is held liable, even where a true unitary persecutory design is lacking.
The case concerned a forklift operator who had been targeted by his colleagues, who mocked him, insulted him — calling him a “loser” and a “snitch” — and had even damaged his locker. While ruling out mobbing, the Supreme Court recognised the distinct legal category of straining, which arises where the employee is compelled to work in an objectively stressful environment. According to the Italian Supreme Court:
- it is the employer who must compensate the harassed employee, having failed to intervene to protect him in breach of Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code;
- compensation covers both the biological damage and the moral damage suffered by the employee (to be quantified according to the tables of the Court of Milan);
- the employee, who had been dismissed for exceeding the protected sick-leave period, is reinstated because many of his absences were caused by an anxiety syndrome attributable to the working conditions.