The Labour Court of Padua, by ruling dated 4 October 2019, established that dismissal for just cause of employees who falsely attest to their presence in the office is permitted – and, therefore, lawful -, even if said conduct is ascertained by the investigative agencies. The case on which the Court of First Instance was called upon to decide refers to an employee hired with development technician within the context of the process of opening new sales outlets. The employee benefited from a position with independent access located in Bologna, adjacent to one of the company’s sales outlets, but entirely independent of said company, separated by a wall. The employee was required to register his entry and exit times via a badge stamping system or, should he forget, by manually entering the times in a special printout provided by the company (a method considered supplementary and not alternative to the former). Having said this, an employee at the company’s security office went to carry out checks on the alarm system at the sales outlet in Bologna and, on that occasion, visited the office next to that of the employee, who, that day, was not on at the office. The employee at the Security Department warned the company, which initiated a series of checks of the employee’s attendance records, noting that the latter often recorded his attendance by entering his times manually in the printout. In this context, the company considered it appropriate to initiate a series of checks, via an investigative agency, on the activities carried out by the appellant. From the investigations, it emerged that, during working hours, albeit attesting otherwise on the attendance sheet, the employee often used to carry out personal matters instead of carrying out his activities for the company, this was also carried out for a long period of time, which was obviously duly paid. This conduct was subject to disciplinary proceedings which led to the employee being dismissed for just cause. Therefore, said employee, following the appeal of the dismissal, filed an appeal with the Court of Padua, which called upon the Honourable Court to ascertain and declare the nullity and/or voidability and/or ineffectiveness and/or illegitimacy of the dismissal ordered by the company given that it was without just cause and, in any case, related to conduct that is punishable by a conservative disciplinary measure. The company duly appeared in court, contesting all charges and also demanding that the appellant be ordered to pay the legal fees.
Click here to continue reading the note to the ruling.
