Pay transparency: as of 7 June, the rules of the pre-hiring stage change
On 7 June, Legislative Decree No. 96 of 7 May 2026 on pay transparency and equal pay enters into force. We focus here on an immediately applicable provision governing the pre-hiring stage: i) job postings — the notices through which job opportunities are advertised — must indicate the starting salary or the pay range assigned to the position, determined on the basis of objective and gender-neutral criteria, as well as the relevant provisions of the applicable collective bargaining agreement; ii) employers may not ask candidates about their pay history, nor may such information be obtained through the parties entrusted with the selection process (recruitment agencies and head hunters included); iii) selection and hiring procedures must be conducted in a non-discriminatory manner. The operational impact on companies is immediate: at interview stage, recruiters and HR managers must strictly comply with these requirements, and job-advert templates, selection practices and agreements with recruitment firms will need to be promptly updated, bearing in mind that all information must be provided in a manner accessible to persons with disabilities.
Working hours of executives and middle managers and the “reasonableness limit”
With judgment No. 16305 of 26 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court confirms that managerial staff, although exempt from statutory working-time limits, are entitled to overtime pay in two cases: i) where the collective agreement sets normal working hours for such staff as well, and those hours are exceeded in practice; ii) where the work performed exceeds, in any event, the “reasonableness limit”, becoming particularly burdensome and exhausting. The assessment is not arithmetical: what matters is the qualitative element — the physical and intellectual effort required — rather than the mere number of hours worked. Three points of significant practical interest: a) the managerial function allowance compensates the exemption from working-time limits, but does not cover work exceeding the threshold of physical tolerability; b) the individual salary supplement (superminimo) does not offset overtime, absent an express all-inclusive pay agreement (patto di conglobamento) specifying the amounts and the items covered on a lump-sum basis; c) overtime worked on a habitual and continuous basis counts towards the calculation of severance pay (TFR). Finally, the Court affirms the employer’s liability under Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code — including for failure to monitor workloads — with a further consequence: sickness caused by such breach cannot be counted towards the protected sick-leave period (comporto), and a dismissal served for exceeding that period is null and void, with reinstatement under Article 18, paragraphs 4 and 7, of Law No. 300/1970.
Retaliatory dismissal: the unlawful motive may also be proven by presumption
With order No. 13711 of 11 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court, addressing the burden of proof resting on the employee to demonstrate the retaliatory nature of a dismissal, holds that such proof may be given by simple presumptions, attributing circumstantial weight — within a unitary and overall assessment — to the vagueness of the disciplinary charge, the non-existence or pretextual nature of the allegations, the disproportion of the dismissal compared with the scale of sanctions set out in the applicable collective agreement, and a context of employer intolerance towards the employee’s legitimate claims. The case concerned an employee dismissed on wholly generic charges (“repeated negligence”, “general disinterest”, “constant insubordination”) after declaring that he was no longer willing to work overtime, which the company demanded systematically and far beyond statutory limits — to the point that full availability for overtime had been made a condition for the continuation of the employment relationship. Against that background, the dismissal was held to be retaliatory and therefore null and void, with the employee’s consequent reinstatement.
Disciplinary dismissal without prior notice of charges: it is not null and void and, in small businesses, the employee is entitled to monetary compensation only
With judgment No. 17283 of 1 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court clarifies that, where a disciplinary dismissal is served without any prior notice of the charges, the defect — however serious — does not render the dismissal null and void. The absence of the charge amounts to the non-existence of the alleged misconduct, and the employee is entitled to:
- reinstatement in its mitigated form, in companies above the fifteen-employee threshold;
- a reduced monetary indemnity, without reinstatement, in companies with fewer than 15 employees. The Court reiterates that the breach of procedural safeguards — although described as an “extremely serious” defect — does not amount to a nullity capable of circumventing the headcount threshold: reinstatement irrespective of company size remains confined to dismissals that are discriminatory, determined by an unlawful motive, communicated orally, or affected by expressly provided grounds of nullity. The ruling thus clearly defines the perimeter: above the 15-employee threshold, failure to serve the notice of charges exposes the employer to mitigated reinstatement; below it, to monetary compensation only.
RIMANI AGGIORNATO SULLE ULTIME NOTIZIE LAW. CLICCA QUI PER SAPERNE DI PIÙ!