Categories: Insights, Case Law

Tag: appalto


4 Nov 2019

The contract in which the customer carries out a control system on the work activity with automated tools is unlawful

The Court of Padua, under ruling no. 550 of July 16, 2019, addressed the issue of employment based on the concept of hetero-direction of work in the light of technological evolution, outlining the criteria for identifying the actual employer.

Facts of the case

The case in question originates from the appeal filed by four employees of a Cooperative Company, who were contractors for the management of warehouse logistics services and who claimed that they had ascertained that they were executing their employment contract directly with the customer. The complainants’ duties were those of “pickers“, i.e. pickers and handlers of goods, in relation to which they were placed at the first level of the Multiservice National Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The employees’ request was based on the assumption that (i) all the means necessary for the execution of the contract were the property of the customer and (ii) the working instructions were issued directly by the customer, either through a mobile terminal available to the workers or, by voice, through a connection using a headset and a microphone. This control system allowed the customer company to know, in real time, the operations carried out by the individual and the duration of each operation.

The four workers also claimed that the work was controlled by the logistics manager of the customer and by one of its employees, who reprimanded workers who did not complete the minimum number of hourly operations required.

The workers in question claimed the application of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement of the services sector, applied by the customer, with classification at the 5th level, or the application of the Multiservices National Collective Bargaining Agreement of the contractor with classification at the 3rd level.

Said workers therefore demanded, that, primarily, the execution of an employment contract be ascertained directly with the customer, with the sentencing of the latter to pay the due wage differences and that, secondly, the defendant companies be sentenced to pay the wage differences in relation to the classification in the 3 level of the Multiservices National Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The decision of the Court of Padua

In the opinion of the Court of First Instance, the fact that the customer was in a position to process the data of the workers of third-party companies by means of tools potentially suitable for the remote control of workers is an argument for considering that it exercised the powers of the employer.

The customer, in fact, exercised a specific and timely control over the managers of the cooperative. This control was not limited to the preparation of general directives on the execution of the contract, but provided for the holding of two meetings a day in the presence of the workers and the warehouse manager. In addition, the Judge pointed out that it was suspected that there was a coincidence in time between the reminders that the owners of the cooperative addressed to the employees and the discussions they held with the person in charge of the customer.

The work organisation of the “pickers” was also fully automated and the software through which this automation was realised was exclusively available to the customer. The software recorded the individual operations of the workers, associating a code to the name that it recognised vocally.

Ultimately, the Court believed that the overall management of the company’s activities and the work management of the individual employees could be understood as a computerised relationship with the customer, leaving the cooperative with a residual function of control and disciplinary intervention, that was more or less solicited.

In light of the foregoing, the Court of Padua accepted the workers’ request, considering them employees of the customer, sentencing the latter (i) to classify them at the 5th level of the Services Sector National Collective Bargaining Agreement, (ii) to pay each of them the relative salary differences and (iii) to pay the social security and welfare contributions due on the basis of this contract.

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 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…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…