Categories: Insights, Case Law


28 Jan 2018

Punitive consequences for late claims

The Court of Cassation in its Plenary Sitting, with judgement No. 30985/2017 resolved a conflict of case-law regarding the penalty in the case of disciplinary dismissal affected by a late claim of unlawfulness. The controversy from which the judgement of the Plenary Sitting emerged, arose from an appeal filed at the court by an employee in disagreement with the dismissal for just cause ordered as the implementation of disciplinary proceedings initiated approximately 2 years after the employer became aware of the facts charged to him. Case law presented two contrasting interpretations. According to the first interpretation, the late claim did not have substantial value in terms of employer’s right of withdrawal, thus triggering the indemnification protection as per article 18, paragraph 5 of the Workers’ Charter. The second interpretation deems the immediacy of the dismissal order a fundamental element of the employer’s right of withdrawal, with consequent application of the reintegration protection pursuant to article 18, paragraph 4, of the Workers’ Charter. The Plenary Sitting of the Court chose to adhere – at the end of lengthy proceedings – to the first interpretation, stating the following law principle: “The judgement concerning disciplinary dismissal following the occurrence of a significant and unjustified delay in issuing the claim related to the charge leading to the dismissal and falling “ratione temporis” under the provisions of article 18 of the law No. 300 dated 1970, as amended by paragraph 42 of article 1 of the law No. 92 dated 28.6.2012, gives rise to the application of the indemnification penalty as established in the fifth paragraph of article 18 of the law No. 300/1970”. This means that, upon the occurrence of unlawful dismissal due to a late claim, full indemnification protection shall apply, which means a reimbursement in favour of the interested employee, without prejudice to the termination of the employment relationship, in an amount ranging from 12 to 24 monthly pay based on the last total salary paid.

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 Sep 2026

Company files deleted from the PC: dismissal lawful even without proof of damage

The matter arises from the disciplinary dismissal of an employee performing general secretarial duties who, upon returning the company computer following a change in her duties, handed back…

1 Sep 2026

Overtime work: a summary schedule is not enough, employees must provide strict evidence of both the hours worked and the extent of the overtime performed

With order no. 20700 of 18 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court once again addressed the issue of overtime work, reiterating that employees claiming overtime pay must strictly…

1 Sep 2026

Did you know that… an individual allowance that has remained unchanged for years may become non-absorbable?

In judgment no. 24475 of 5 August 2026, the Employment Section of the Italian Supreme Court confirmed that an individual allowance (i.e. “superminimo”), although normally subject to the…

3 Aug 2026

Pay Transparency: the first requests from employees are starting to arrive (Il Sole 24 Ore, 3 august 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Two months after the decree. Since Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7 June, according to a flash survey conducted by GIDP, 8% of HR directors have…

30 Jul 2026

Corporate controls and data protection: what balance?

A recent judgment of the Court of Pisa, No. 800 of 13 June 2026, addresses a topic of particular interest for companies: the delicate balance between the protection…

30 Jul 2026

Unfair dismissal and reinstatement: the employee must repay the payment in lieu of notice

With order no. 22187 of 28 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment in lieu of notice paid to an employee must be…