The
Court of Cassation, under ruling no. 21537 of 20 August 2019, declared the
unilateral termination by the employer of the collective agreement before its
natural expiry date unlawful, even if said contract is withdrawn from its trade
association (in this specific case, Confindustria).
Facts of the case
The
District Court had partially reformed the first instance decision, confirming
it insofar as it had rejected the objection of the Federazione Italiana
Lavoratori Chimica Tessile Energia Manifatturiera – CGIL Provinciale [Provincial
General Confederation of Italian Workers] and the counterclaim of the employer
company against that decision. The Court considered the conduct of the company
to be anti-union, involving its failure to inform and consult a representative
trade union regarding the negotiation and subsequent conclusion of a new
collective agreement with the other trade unions.
The
Court of Appeal found that the employer company, having withdrawn from
Confindustria, was no longer required to comply with the trade union agreements
signed by the association of the sector (in this specific case, Federgomma)
and, therefore, was free to apply to its employees the National Collective
Bargaining Agreement referred to in the company agreement.
The
trade union that signed the contract with Federgomma appealed in cassation
against the decision of the Court of Appeal, to which the Company stood up to
with its defence.
The
decision of the Court of Cassation
Firstly, the Supreme
Court referred to its previous opinion, according to which in the collective
agreement, the possibility of termination only applies to the contracting
parties, i.e. the trade unions and employers’ associations, whilst the
individual employer is not permitted to withdraw unilaterally therefrom, not
even on the grounds of excessive costs under Article. 1467 of the Italian Civil
Code, except in the case of company agreements entered into by the individual
employer with local trade unions.
The Court then
referred to another previous opinion in respect of which the employer is
granted the right to withdraw from a post-corporate collective
agreement entered into for an indefinite period of time and without
a predetermined expiry date. This is because the agreement cannot bind all
the contracting parties forever. Otherwise, the cause and social function of
the collective bargaining agreement would be invalidated, the governance of
which mustalways be based on a constantly evolving socio-economic
reality.
Again,
according to the Court, this principle is valid provided that the withdrawal is
exercised in accordance with the criteria of good faith and fairness
in the execution of the agreement and must not be detrimental to the
intangible rights of workers, resulting from the previous, more favourable,
regulations and entered definitively in their assets.
In
this context, the Court refers to two rulings (please see ruling 14511/2013 and
ruling 24268/2013), according to which, in our legal system, there is no
obligation for the employer to negotiate and enter into collective agreements
with all trade unions, with the possibility of signing a new collective
agreement with trade unions other than those that have negotiated and signed
the previous agreement coming under negotiating autonomy.
However,
in the Court’s opinion, the issue in question in this specific case is the
application of the collective agreement until its natural expiry date, in the
absence of notice of termination by the eligible persons.
On
this point, the Court considers that there is no principle or rule which would
lead to the conclusion that a new collective agreement can be applied before
the expiry date of the collective agreement currently in force, which the
parties have undertaken to comply with.
As
a result, the Supreme Court referred the ruling back to the District Court,
with a different composition, which shall be responsible for reconsidering it
based on the principles set out in the ruling in question, in addition to the
settlement of litigation costs.