Dismissals, bull’s eye “Legal actions are drastically reduced; now the justice system is less burdened” (Affari&Finanza, 13 March 2017 – Vittorio De Luca)

Vittorio De Luca talks about the main effects of the Jobs Act that through the new changes introduced in the matter of flexibility at end of employment, which reduce the possibilities of reintegration and introduce financial compensation, has indeed revolutionised the job market in Italy.

According to the statistics of the Ministry “of Justice, lawsuits for dismissal for objective just cause have halved since 2012, those for disciplinary dismissal have decreased by a third”. Vittorio De Luca, partner of the employment law firm De Luca sited the figures of the “Permanent census of employment-related litigation”, to show how the law has reached its goal: limit the use of the court, considered a deterrent for hiring. “The 2012 (called “la Fornero”) and 2015 (Jobs Act) reforms explained the lawyer were created with the precise declared intent to reduce litigation, fostering proceedings that made it possible for the parties to meet and that which we lawyers call amicable settlement of disputes”. Thus while in the first eight months of 2016 dismissals on open end contracts changed, according to Inps from 304,437 (+31%), including for dismissals for just cause, from 36,048 of 2015 to 46,255 (+28 %), litigation in courts is decreasing. At present, workers think twice before going to court. Mainly due to a fear of not winning the case and having to also pay court costs. Moreover, with the Fornero 2012 reform, and then even more with the Jobs Act of 2015, the hypotheses of reinstatement for an unlawfully dismissed employee have been limited. “The Fornero reform changed article 18 of the Workers’ Statute, including also the hypothesis of economic compensation and not just reinstatement in the job. And even in cases where the judge recognises the unlawfulness of a dismissal”, explained the lawyer. With the 2015 Jobs Act, the law made it even more difficult for an employee to re-obtain his or her job, “by including that, normally, if dismissed the employee has the right to an economic indemnity and, only in serious cases such as discrimination, the judge can order reinstatement”. Moreover, the economic indemnities that the worker can obtain are pre-determined by the law and no longer up to the judge’s assessment. Thus, increasingly often, the terms of the dismissal are negotiated out of court. At present, the employer is the strongest party. No just workers, but also employment lawyers, in a certain sense, are paying the price of this reform. “The extension of hiring with increased protection based on seniority, according to some colleagues, will further limit the use of courts. Certainly it is likely that proceedings for discriminatory dismissal will increase. But it is definitely the worker who is weakened by this situation. Recently, the Court of Cassation handed down a ruling that raised much interest from entrepreneurs who contacted lawyers to understand its impact. A ruling that caused a lot of fuss: that on dismissing an employee not due to a company’s economic problems but to increase the employer’s profit. “However, I think the sentence caused an unjustified sensation, commented De Luca, since with an interpretation closer to the law 604 of 1966 to which it refers, it expresses an orientation that is not new for the Supreme Court”. According to the lawyer, the sentence does not do other that mention “two orientations prevalent on the subject of lawful dismissal for objective justified reason opting for a solution more in line with the aforesaid law”.