In brief
This publication features the latest developments in Italy's employment sector.
Key takeaways
- Case law developments
- An employee who resigns following the relocation of the workplace more than 50 km away from home is not entitled to unemployment benefits
- Reinstatement of an employee who was filmed by a private investigator lifting weights following a work-related injury
- Private WhatsApp chat among colleagues cannot be used for disciplinary purposes
- A specific description of the duties is required in order for a probation clause to be valid
In more detail
Case law developments
An employee who resigns following the relocation of the workplace more than 50 km away from home is not entitled to unemployment benefits
The Supreme court ruled that an employee, who resigns as a consequence of the relocation of the workplace to a location more than 50 km from their place of residence, is not entitled to receive NASpI unemployment benefits, as the essential requirement of involuntary unemployment is not satisfied. In fact, the Supreme court ascertained the existence of substantiated technical, organizational, and productive reasons underlying the relocation, thereby excluding any breach of contract or violation of an employer's contractual obligations.
Reinstatement of an employee who was filmed by a private investigator lifting weights following a work-related injury
A local court reiterated the principle that the performance of activities outside the workplace by an employee during sick leave or leave due to injury constitutes just cause for dismissal only where such activities are capable of jeopardizing, or even merely delaying, an employee's recovery and subsequent return to work.
In a recent case, the court declared a dismissal unlawful in circumstances where the employee was dismissed after being covertly filmed by a private investigator while leaving home to go grocery shopping and handling heavy packages. There was no just cause for the dismissal, as such conduct was not capable of delaying the employee’s recovery or return to work.
Private WhatsApp chat among colleagues cannot be used for disciplinary purposes
A local court found null and void a disciplinary sanction imposed on an employee for messages shared within a WhatsApp group composed exclusively of colleagues, notwithstanding the seriously offensive and defamatory nature of the messages. Such communications must in fact be regarded as private correspondence, which is inviolable under the Italian Constitution. In this case, an employee had sent voice and text messages from their personal mobile phone within a closed chat group with five colleagues. One of the chat group members subsequently shared the content with the employer, who then imposed a five-day suspension on the employee who had written the offensive messages. However, the local court held that the messages were inadmissible evidence for disciplinary purposes, as they constituted private communications protected by constitutional safeguards.
A specific description of the duties is required in order for a probation clause to be valid
A local court confirmed the principle that a probationary clause is valid only if the employee's duties are specifically identified in writing. This requirement may also be satisfied by referring to the collective bargaining agreement, if the reference is sufficiently detailed and enables the identification of a particular role.