The conduct of the employer that engages with unions via WhatsApp is not anti-union
A provincial trade union took legal action to ascertain the anti-union conduct, pursuant to Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute, against the employer which allegedly did not comply during the Covid-19 epidemic with the information and consultation obligations established by the applicable national collective labor agreement regarding health and safety measures in the workplace. The employer defended itself by demonstrating that labor relations had been ensured through contacts made via Whatsapp, taking into account the need for immediate implementation of regulations, given the historical moment.
The Supreme Court, with judgment no. 789 on January 14, 2026, rejected the union’s claim, considering that there is no anti-union behavior if it is established that – due to justified circumstances – the interests of participation protected by legal and collective provisions “have been effectively ensured, even through atypical and extemporaneous forms that, although formally not compliant with those provisions, are objectively suitable, considering the existing factual situation, to ensure, as far as possible, their objectives.”.
It is legitimate for a worker affected by anxious-depressive syndrome to engage in sports activities during sick leave
A worker, suffering from multiple sclerosis and anxious-depressive syndrome, challenged his dismissal for just cause that followed a disciplinary procedure in which the employer accused him, among other things, of playing soccer with friends at a sports center while he was on sick leave. With ruling no. 50 of January 22, 2026, the Bergamo Court intervened, establishing that, in this case, the behavior of the worker cannot be considered just cause for dismissal. In fact, the act of playing soccer and subsequently socializing with fellow players during the periods of absence due to illness related to the anxious-depressive syndrome was not indicative of feigning illness nor incompatible with it, nor did it impede recovery. On the contrary, according to the judges, these activities represented an effective stimulus for a person in the complainant’s condition, as the treating specialists had prescribed sports activities and maintenance of interpersonal relationships in light of the diagnosed conditions.
It is the burden of the worker who challenges the dismissal communicated orally to prove the employer’s intention to terminate the employment relationship
A worker challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro regarding the partial rejection of an appeal made against his employer concerning multiple claims related to the employment relationship. Among the complaints, the worker argued that the territorial court had erred in stating that the burden of proof regarding the dismissal rested with the worker.
The Supreme Court, with order No. 4077 of February 23, 2026, confirmed the legal principle that a worker challenging a dismissal based on an oral notification is required to demonstrate that the termination of the relationship is attributable to the employer’s intention, although expressed through conclusive behaviors, as proof of merely ceasing the execution of the work performance is insufficient. In this case, not only did the worker fail to meet this evidentiary burden, but there was also a resignation letter signed by the worker, which was never disputed by him. In light of the above, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court judges, finding that the oral nature of the dismissal claimed by the worker was not proven.
An accident that occurs at home during smart working is considered a workplace injury
A worker has approached the judicial authority to obtain recognition of the incident that occurred to her in her home while performing work duties in smart working as a workplace injury, also requesting the assessment of a 12% disability as a result of the biological damage sustained due to this incident.
During the proceedings, INAIL (the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work) contested the worker’s request regarding the quantification of the biological damage, thus confirming the nature of the accident that occurred while carrying out work activities at her residence as a workplace injury. The Court of Padua, with judgment no. 462 of May 8, 2025, declared the matter of contention regarding the qualification of the incident as a workplace injury and the quantification of biological damage to be moot (the latter determined based on the findings of the joint expert examination) and ordered INPS to pay, in favor of the worker, the expenses related to medical visits conducted by private specialists.
STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LEGAL NEWS. CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE!