In brief
This publication features the latest developments in Italy’s employment law landscape.
Key takeaways
Key case law developments
- An employee retains the right to receive salary payments from the transferor if a business transfer is declared null and void.
- An employer may agree with an employee to extend the notice period in the event of resignation.
- Breach of an employee’s duty of loyalty must be objectively proven.
- An employer must prove that it is impossible to adopt reasonable accommodations when dismissing an employee for objectively justified reasons.
In more detail
An employee retains the right to receive salary payments from the transferor if a business transfer is declared null and void.
If the transfer of a business unit is declared null and void, remuneration paid by the transferee does not release the transferor. In a recent ruling, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed that an employee is entitled to salary from the transferor for the period between the transfer and their reinstatement, even if the transferee has already made payments.
An employer may agree with an employee to extend the notice period in the event of resignation
An employer and an employee may agree to extend the notice period due in the event of resignation, provided that a corresponding benefit is granted to the employee as consideration for the additional obligation. According to a recent ruling, such agreements are valid provided they do not undermine the employee’s right to terminate the employment relationship during notice.
Breach of an employee’s duty of loyalty must be objectively proven
Allegations of breach of the duty of loyalty must be based on specific and verifiable facts. In a recent case, an employer alleged a conflict of interest due to an employee’s role as director in another company, without citing concrete incidents or proving actual activity performed in competition with the employer. The court clarified that objective evidence must be gathered to uphold a claim for breach of loyalty. Consequently, generic statements such as “continuous activity in competition” and references to potential conflicts are inadequate and not sufficient grounds for termination.
An employer must prove that it is impossible to adopt reasonable accommodations when dismissing an employee for objective justified reasons
Dismissing an employee who has become physically unfit for their role is unlawful if it violates the obligation to (i) verify the availability of positions compatible with the employee’s health condition and (ii) adopt “reasonable accommodations”. In a recent case, an employer notified an employee of their dismissal — dismissal considered unlawful by the court — claiming that there were no positions compatible with their health conditions, without proving that it was impossible to assign alternative duties or implement reasonable organizational changes to allow the employee to continue working.