With its judgement no. 23735 dated 22 November 2016, the Court of Cassation once again draws the boundaries between ontologically disciplinary dismissal and dismissal for justified objective grounds. In the case in question, the reason given for dismissal for justified objective grounds submitted to the Court was “the almost total absence of concurrence, between your obligations to us, and the services actually provided by you (also in terms of results), that must inevitably be linked to the failure to adapt – although (…) this was repeatedly urged – to the needs (behavioural, productive, evaluation, etc.) that market developments, on the other hand, entail”. The Court pointed out that on the question of dismissal of an individual, a justified objective ground should in any case be excluded when, over and above the reasons alleged by the company, such dismissal is based on conduct involving an intentional behaviour of the worker that is detrimental to his/her contractual duties. The Court also pointed out that organisational reasons claimed as reason for dismissal for justified objective grounds may be applicable in specific conditions relevant to the worker, provided the same are objective circumstances that cause the employer to lose interest in the services, such as unexpected unfitness for service including a physical disability, imprisonment, suspension of a driving licence or administrative authorisation, a lack of the professional qualifications required, and that substantially therefore do not imply a breach by the employer. In this way, the Court held that although the case of dismissal submitted to its attention had officially been described by the employer as dismissal for justified objective grounds, the same should be considered, in view of its characteristics, as a case of disciplinary dismissal.
