Categories: Insights, Case Law


31 Aug 2020

Unlawful company transfer and “double remuneration”

The Court of Trent, with its ruling no. 86 of 2020, re-examined the issue of so-called “double remuneration” of workers whose employment changes hands due to a company sale, if such transfer is declared unlawful. The case law orientation on this issue has been in conflict for a long time.

According to a recent ruling by the Cassation Court (judgement no. 9093/2020) in the case represented above the worker should be granted double remuneration; therefore, the transferor employer may not deduct from remuneration due for the past what the same worker would have received, for remuneration, for work performed for the “former transferee”.

The Court of Trent, deviating from such orientation, excludes that the worker, following annulment of the company transfer, can be part of two jobs (one “material job” for the previous transferee, and one “legal job” for the former transferor that originates as the effect of the ruling). In such case, the two employment relationships regard the same job and, consequently the same remuneration for such, even of the legal source of the obligation is different.

Based on these premises, the trial judge established that if a company transfer is declared unlawful, the worker who returns to the employment of the transferor cannot ask for payment of remuneration that he would have received during the period between the transfer and ruling if during such period he received remuneration from the transferee.

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…