Categories: Insights, Case Law

Tag: CCNL


5 Jan 2021

Internal regulations: penalty clauses enforceable only if specifically accepted

The Supreme Court of Cassation, by Order no. 27422 dated 1 December 2020, established that the clauses of the national collective agreement stating that workers are required to respect not only the provisions contained therein but also those established in internal regulations does not automatically bind employees to the compensation obligation envisaged therein in the event of a violation of its provisions.

Facts of the case

In this case, a company had made a withholding from an employee’s pay packet in relation to reckless safekeeping of property after 56 tickets were taken from the same after a bag was stolen. This was done by virtue of a provision contained in an internal circular, previously communicated to employees, according to which they were obliged to compensate a certain amount in the event that tickets were stolen. In the company’s opinion, the provision was immediately applicable precisely by virtue of the reference made by the industry’s National Collective Labour Agreement to internal regulations, with which employees were required to comply. The Supreme Court of Cassation was not of the same opinion.

The Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling

According to the Supreme Court, the indication of compensable damage in a circular or in an internal regulation for the violation of one of its provisions equates to a penalty clause which, as such, only binds employees in the face of their express acceptance.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the penalty clause is a means of enforcing specific contractual obligations and constitutes an “agreed early settlement” of the damage deriving from their violation. The penalty clause presupposes, by its characteristics, a meeting of wills which the parties formalise in a deed, in the absence of which its application cannot be enforced. The establishment of the penalty does not fall among the employer’s unilateral powers, as its specific negotiation and formal approval are its irreplaceable presuppositions.

Therefore, regulations, circulars and service orders that envisage an obligation to compensate a certain amount, in order to be binding, may not simply be communicated or affixed to the company notice board. A deed of acceptance and adhesion from each individual worker is required.

Other insight related:

Did you know that… adopting a policy on IT tools allows using the data collected also for disciplinary purposes?

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

12 Oct 2026

“AI tools, remote work and confidential data: employer liability in a borderless environment” – IBA Conference 2026

At the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, our Managing Partner Vittorio De Luca moderated a panel on one of the most pressing challenges facing employers today: the…

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…