The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 8260 dated 30 March 2017, reforming the judgement of the Court of Appeal with jurisdiction in the territory, accepted the complaints of a worker who had signed the minutes of a conciliation meeting at the union’s and then requested them to be voided with the goal of having the court verify the invalidity of the dismissal ordered during a collective dismissal procedure. In particular, the worker asserted that in the case in hand, there was defect in consent deriving from a deceiving manoeuvre that led him to sign the minutes of conciliation on the assumption that his professional position fell among those in excess and that such assumption, shortly after, proved to be false when the company hired another employee to hold the same position he had held previously. According to the Court of Cassation, the judges in charge of the matter were incorrect in not assessing whether the behaviour of the employer company was such to deceive the worker. This because, even a «conduct of malicious silence» may lead to deceit and, therefore, to defect of consent based on fraudulent non-disclosure. In fact, according to the Court of Cassation, also in the employment contract, lack of disclosure and reluctance from one of the parties regarding situations of interest to the counter-party, whenever such reluctance is part of an overall pre-planned behaviour, with malice or trickery, intended to implement the deceit being pursued, represent fraudulent non-disclosure pursuant to article 1439 of the civil code. According to such principle, the Court of Cassation then ordered the Court of Appeal to verify the corporate conduct regarding fraudulent non-disclosure against the employee.
