Categories: Insights, Case Law


31 Aug 2020

The employer can unilaterally interrupt the payment of meal vouchers

With order no. 16135 of 28 July 2020, The Court of Cassation stated that meal vouchers were not remunerative and that their issue may be unilaterally interrupted by the employer.

The facts of the case

The legal case originates from an appeal filed by a worker with the court to (i) declare the unilateral decision of their employer to interrupt the payment of meal vouchers illegitimate and, consequently, (ii) order the employer to pay the related wage difference.

Against their appeal’s rejection, the losing worker referred the matter to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed the decision. The worker appealed to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation’s decision

The Court of Cassation upheld the decision on the merits that meal vouchers are not an element of remuneration, but an occasional welfare benefit linked to the employment.

Since they do not fall within remuneration in the strict sense of the term, the issue of meal vouchers may be modified by a unilateral employer decision which is not formalised in a trade union agreement, since it is “an internal act.”

The Order added that it was impossible to claim the employer’s continued issue of vouchers, even if it was a company practice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal brought by the worker, confirming the legitimacy of the employer’s actions.

Others Insights related:

Do you know that the employer is entitled to modify the duties, the legal category and the contractual enrollment as well as the salary of the employee?

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…