With judgment no. 26956 of October 7, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court – Labor Division – confirmed the legitimacy of an employee’s dismissal for exceeding the statutory sick leave period (i.e. “periodo di comport”, the maximum period of protected absence due to illness), reiterating that it is not sufficient for the worker to suffer from a serious illness; the condition must also be formally communicated to the employer through appropriate medical certification.
In the case at hand, the employee had been dismissed for exceeding the limit of 245 days of absence provided by Article 63 of the Italian National Collective Bargaining Agreement (i.e. “CCNL”) for the Logistics, Freight Transport and Shipping sector. The worker challenged the dismissal before the Court of First Instance, arguing that his absences – due to a condition requiring dialysis treatment – should be excluded from the calculation, as they fell within the scope of “particularly serious illnesses” referred to in paragraph 8 of the same article.
The lower court upheld the employee’s claim. However, the Court of Appeal of Ancona, overturning the first-instance decision, held that the contractual clause in Article 63, paragraph. 8, of the NCBA Logistics must be interpreted restrictively, limiting its application only to cases of illnesses requiring formally certified life-saving therapies.
The Italian Supreme Court confirmed this approach, clarifying that the exclusion of absences from the sick leave period constitutes an exception to the general rule and therefore requires strict compliance with the employee’s duty to provide formal notification.
In this case, although the employee had informally informed his supervisor of his medical condition via WhatsApp messages, the medical certificates submitted to the company did not include the box ticked for “serious illness requiring life-saving treatment.” According to the Court, this omission prevented the application of the favorable clause provided under the NCBA.
The Supreme Court further clarified that dialysis therapy indeed qualifies, in abstract terms, as a life-saving treatment. However, the decisive factor was the employee’s failure to fulfill the formal communication requirement. In line with the principles of legal certainty and the formal nature of acts affecting the employment relationship, informal communications – even if timely – cannot serve as proof or substitute for the required medical-legal documentation.
In conclusion, mere employer awareness of the employee’s illness, acquired through informal channels, is not sufficient to justify the exclusion of absences from the sick leave period unless accompanied by explicit and properly issued medical certification in accordance with the applicable procedures.
Other related Insights:
