The employee’s use of recorded conversations is permissible, even without colleagues’ knowledge
The Supreme Court, with order No. 20487 of July 21, 2025, intervened to regulate – once again – the complicated relationship between the right to privacy and the right to defense. With the ruling in review, the Court of Cassation clarified that the use of recordings of conversations between employees is permissible for defensive purposes in court, even in the absence of consent from the present colleagues, as it falls within the category of mechanical reproductions as per Article 2712 of the Civil Code. According to the judges of legitimacy, therefore, when it comes to asserting the right to defense in court, the strict requirement of consent from the data owner can be subject to exceptions and derogations. However, for the employee to use such evidence in court, the recording must be limited to the purpose of demonstrating in court the illegitimate conduct of the employer, without exceeding these limits or having solely exploratory aims. Based on this orientation, the judges of the Court held, in this specific case, that “the recording, not made during an ongoing judicial proceeding or in view of its imminent introduction and for the purpose of establishing evidence useful for the defense in that context, had a merely exploratory aim and in no way interfered with the facts underlying the infinite described methods and aims; this recording was not relevant or functional to the exercise of the right to defense, but, on the contrary, constituted a significant failure to comply with contractual obligations of correctness and loyalty, thereby legitimating the imposition of a proportionate safeguard sanction.”
The dismissal for just cause of an employee who insults their hierarchical superior is legitimate
With order no. 21103 of July 24, 2025, the Court of Cassation ruled that the dismissal for just cause of an employee who, in the presence of another colleague, directed a serious insult at her superior while rejecting an instruction received, was legitimate. The judges of the Cassation, confirming the reasoning of the Catania Court of Appeal, considered the insulting behavior of the employee, being public and characterized by a defiant attitude towards her superior, not to be evaluated as a mere dispute or quarrel, but rather as serious insubordination marked by the insult and refusal to comply, directly affecting the functionality and hierarchy of the company. The presence of a previous disciplinary record was also considered by the Court as an additional parameter for assessing the severity of the conduct, not for the purpose of recidivism, but as a signal of the employee’s inclination towards insult and defamation. According to the judges of legitimacy, such serious and offensive behavior has irreparably injured the fiduciary bond, thereby justifying the employer’s termination for just cause.
Invasive controls on the employee’s private life are illegitimate
The Court of Cassation, with order no. 23578 of August 20, 2025, established further boundaries regarding employers’ surveillance of workers. The ruling in question concerns the case of a company that, despite the absence of a well-founded suspicion of illicit conduct, subjected an employee absent due to illness, to investigative controls for 16 days, including Christmas holidays, after which the employee was accused of violating the obligation of availability. The Supreme Court upheld the decision already made by the Court of Appeal of Venice, deeming the investigative activity conducted by the employer illegitimate as it was excessively invasive of the employee’s private life, given the long duration of the surveillance, as well as the fact that the investigations had also involved family members and third parties. To verify any violation of the availability time slots, according to the judges, it would have been sufficient to request the health check from the administrative authority. Therefore, according to the Court, the investigative effort aimed at verifying the employee’s fulfillment of contractual obligations must be minimal and proportionate, and there must be substantial suspicions of wrongdoing on the part of the worker, which did not exist in the case at hand. Accordingly, the Court of Cassation upheld the second-degree ruling, reiterating the illegitimacy of the dismissal.
Unauthorized SW: termination is legitimate
According to the Court of Ragusa, it is legitimate to dismiss an employee who works remotely without prior authorization from the employer and without signing the required individual agreement. The judges, with a ruling published on July 11, 2025, established that performing work activity remotely does not constitute a “full” right of the worker, as it is subject to prior authorization from the employer and the signing of a specific individual agreement in this regard. The existence of suitable requirements to benefit from the smart working arrangement does not entitle the worker to arbitrarily carry out their work in locations other than the company premises; rather, it is the employee’s responsibility to take steps to obtain the necessary authorization. Based on this reasoning, the Ragusa judges considered that the conduct of the employee in question, characterized by disciplinary misconduct, constituted an offense justifying dismissal.
Fixed-term contracts exceeding 12 months: reasons identified by the parties until December 31, 2026
Law n. 118/2025 converting of Legislative Decree n. 95/2025, known as the “Economic Decree,” modifying article 19 paragraph 1 letter b) of Legislative Decree 81/2015, in the absence of specific provisions in collective agreements, has extended until December 31, 2026, the possibility of entering into fixed-term contracts beyond the 12-month term for “needs of a technical, organizational, or production nature” identified by the parties.
STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE LATEST LEGAL NEWS. CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE!