Categories: Insights, Case Law


29 Nov 2016

The employment requirement must be considered only with respect to the national territory

With ruling no. 19557 dated 30 September 2016, the Supreme Court stated that in the case of a foreign company with a branch office in Italy – in order to determine whether or not the size requisite for application of section 18 of Law no. 300/1970 in the event of unfair dismissal applies – only the workers employed in the national territory will be taken into account, and not the total number of employees in other countries where the Company operates. In the case in question, an employee of a Dutch company, who was dismissed for just cause, applied to the Court against its employer’s dismissal, with consequent application of the protection set forth by section 18 of the Workers’ Statute, alleging that both the workers employed in Italy and those employed in Holland in the employment base should be taken into account. Starting from two opposite positions adopted in case law, the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that even if the sub office or branch office of a foreign company does not have an independent legal status with respect to the parent-company from a corporate point of view, it is however subject to Italian law as though it had been incorporated in Italy in terms of the employment requisite. The reason for this is that section 18 of the Workers’ Statute indeed suggests territorial and national parameters. If the parent company has one or more branch offices in Italy, only the total number of employees of such branch offices should be calculated in terms of the applicability or otherwise of the actual stability regime.

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…