Categories: Insights, Case Law · News

Tag: Dismissal, Licenziamento, Licenziamento per giusta causa


31 Mar 2022

Dismissal for just cause: disciplinary notice

In its ruling no. 3820 of 7 February 2022, the Court of Cassation established that the disciplinary notice shows the worker of the facts of which they have been charged to allow them to exercise their defence rights. It does not contain evidence, especially when it comes to facts beyond the employer’s direct knowledge which take place outside the company. In such cases, it is sufficient for the employer to specify the source of its knowledge.

Facts of the case

A company initiated disciplinary proceedings against two employees of a motorway toll booth, who were accused of affixing paper to the automatic gate’s optical barrier to prevent the system from detecting vehicles in transit and personally profit from the tolls. The disciplinary proceedings, which centred on the conduct they carried out on 27 October 2016 and other circumstances set out in an annex to the letter of complaint, ended with their dismissal for just cause.

The dismissed employees challenged the dismissal before the local court, which rejected the appeal in the summary stage, but it was upheld in the opposition stage, declaring the dismissal unlawful and ordering the company to reinstate them.

The Court of Appeal of Naples, before which the unsuccessful company appealed, upheld the complaint lodged and, reforming the first instance ruling, rejected the employees’ original application to challenge the dismissal.

The local Court held that the dismissal was lawful because of (i) the degree of trust required by the position they held, which could not be continuously monitored, (ii) the fact that they had dealings with the users and represented the company; (iii) the responsibility associated with the handling of money. According to the local Court, the argument “that the amount stolen was small and the incident isolated” was irrelevant, “because the circumstance that the employees had carried out tricks and deception to take money to the employer’s detriment had a highly negative legal and social implication and irreparably damaged the bond of trust and made the expulsion penalty proportionate.”

The two workers appealed against the Court of Appeal ruling, to which the company replied with a counter-appeal.

The Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling

The Court of Cassation clarified that, when exercising disciplinary power, the charge notice shows the contested fact to allow the worker’s defence. It does not contain any evidence, especially when it comes to facts beyond the employer’s direct knowledge which take place outside the company. It is sufficient that the employer specifies the source of its knowledge.

The Court of Cassation observed that, for dismissal for just cause, when the employee is charged with several disciplinary offences, it is not necessary for the existence of the “cause” that prevents the continuation of the relationship to be found exclusively in the totality of the offences. According to the Court of Cassation, the judge may – as part of the charges underlying the dismissal by the employer – identify even in any one of them the conduct that justifies the expulsion sanction if this is a severe breach required by art. 2119 of the Italian Civil Code.

The Court of Cassation pointed out that thepenalty proportionality or adequacy assessment for the offence committed is based on assessing the seriousness of the worker’s breach concerning the relationship and circumstances of the case. The breach “must be assessed in an accentuated sense compared to the “not insignificant” general rule under Art. 1455 of the Italian Civil Code, so that the imposition of the maximum disciplinary penalty is justified only if there is a significant breach of contractual obligations (Law no. 604 of 1966, Art. 3) or such as not to allow the continuation, even provisional, of the relationship.” In this case, the breach of trust is connected to the use by the employees, of artifices and deception to take money (regardless of its amount) from the employer.

Given the above, the Court of Cassation dismissed the employees’ appeal and ordered them to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

10 Nov 2026

Work and algorithms: starting again from rights (L’Economia – Corriere della Sera, 9 November 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Wage pressures, a turbulent geopolitical context creating uncertainty for companies, and the unknowns surrounding artificial intelligence. These may seem like pieces of the same puzzle that do not…

2 Nov 2026

De Luca & Partners participates in “LEGALTECH IN SCENA”

De Luca & Partners will take part in LEGALTECH ON STAGE, an event organised by Global LegalTech Hub (GLTH), taking place in Milan on 11 November 2026. The…

2 Nov 2026

Constitutional Court Judgment No. 174/2026: the compensation regime for unlawful dismissals 

With Judgment No. 174 of 2026, filed on 22 October 2026, the Constitutional Court once again addressed the financial consequences of unlawful dismissal, this time in relation to…

2 Nov 2026

Did you know that… trade union representativeness for the purpose of establishing a workplace union representation (RSA) must be assessed within the company’s sector of activity?  

With judgment no. 27541 of 22 October 2026, the Employment Section of the Italian Supreme Court identified the criteria for assessing the comparative representativeness at national level of…

2 Nov 2026

Tracking pixels and accountability: new standards for email communications 

The year 2026 marks a significant shift in the way tracking pixels are used in electronic communications. With the recent guidance issued by the Italian Data Protection Authority…

22 Oct 2026

Access to NASpI in light of recent case law (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 22 October 2026 – Vittorio De Luca e Alessandra Zilla)

The New Social Insurance for Employment (NASpI), established by Legislative Decree No. 22 of 4 March 2015, is the main income support measure for employees who have involuntarily…