Categories: Insights, Publications

Tag: Covid19, rapporto di lavoro


7 May 2020

Coronavirus emergency and suspension of remuneration in case of force majeure (Guida al Lavoro de Il Sole 24 Ore, 7 May 2020 – Vittorio De Luca e Antonella Iacobellis)

Considerations at the time of COVID-19: does the current emergency integrate the hypothesis of force majeure for the suspension of remuneration? Does the current COVID-19 spread pandemic situation integrate the hypothesis of force majeure?

In the light of the above questions, it has been deemed appropriate to make some brief reflections on the impact that this event may have on employment relations, evaluating whether the particular contingency may or may not exonerate the operator unable to fulfil the contract – in this case, the employer who suspends the payment of the salary – to invoke force majeure.

The onerous and synallagmatic nature of the employment relationship

As is well known, in Article 2094 of the Italian Civil Code the legislator describes an employee as “a person who is obliged by remuneration to work in the company, performing his or her intellectual or manual work under the direction and dependence of the entrepreneur”.

For the purposes of our interest, the analysis of the above rule shows that in the context of an employment relationship:

– the worker or employee is obliged to carry out a specific work activity, and

– the employer is obliged to pay a salary.

– We add that the employment relationship is, among other things, characterized by:

– the payment of wages to the worker as one of its essential elements;

– synallagmatic performance, in the sense of performance in return for remuneration.

The relationship between employer and employee can also be read from the point of view of debt and credit position.

From this point of view, the employee is bound to an obligation to do, i.e. the locatio operarum, traditionally understood as an obligation of means (one’s own working energies), the employer is bound to pay him/her the salary.

Read the full version of the article in Italian here.

Source: Guida al lavoro – Il Sole 24 ore.

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

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…