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 anagreed 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

6 Feb 2026

Pay equity and transparency: draft implementing decree presented

Italy is among the first Member States to have adopted the draft implementing legislative decree of EU Directive 2023/970, which yesterday received its initial approval from the Council…

30 Jan 2026

A conviction for stalking can justify dismissal for just cause

With Ordinance No. 32952 of 17 December 2025, the Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, ruled that a final conviction for stalking and abuse can justify dismissal for just…

30 Jan 2026

We continue to be a Great Place to Work!

For the third consecutive year, De Luca & Partners has been awarded the prestigious Great Place to Work® certification, a significant recognition of the value we place on…

29 Jan 2026

Italian Supreme Court: Employer Monitoring and the Use of Corporate Chats for Disciplinary Purposes

Corporate chats “intended for work-related communications by employees accessing them through company accounts constitute work tools, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of Law No. 300 of 1970,…

28 Jan 2026

Anti-union conduct: the Supreme Court moves beyond formalism and focuses on substance

With order no. 789 of 14 January 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of anti-union conduct by employers in relation to information and consultation obligations on…

27 Jan 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… the use of artificial intelligence may justify a dismissal for objective justified reason?

With Judgment No. 9135 of November 19, 2025, the Labour Section of the Court of Rome held that the dismissal for objective justified reason (i.e. “giustificato motivo oggettivo”,…