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 the context of witness testimony. The Supreme Court clarified that the fact that a statement was made during proceedings does not, in itself, prevent it from having disciplinary relevance where it proves to be untrue and capable of undermining the relationship of trust with the employer.
The case concerned an employee who had been dismissed for making, in civil proceedings brought by a colleague against the company, statements that the employer considered false and seriously damaging to its image and reputation. In particular, the employee had stated that the company had prevented employees from following certain safety procedures “so as not to bring safety issues to light”, thereby accusing the company of knowingly pursuing aims incompatible with the protection of health and safety at work.
Both the First Instance Court and the Court of Appeal had held the dismissal to be unlawful, relying on the fact that the statements had been made in the context of witness testimony and considering it irrelevant to ascertain whether they were true.
The Supreme Court, however, criticised that approach. Referring to its settled case law, the Court recalled that conduct outside the workplace may also have disciplinary relevance where it is capable of compromising the relationship of trust, undermining the confidence that the employer must be able to place in the employee.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that the right to criticise is certainly constitutionally protected, but is subject to clearly defined limits. In particular, the Court reiterated that, “where criticism consists of attributing conduct that is alleged to have historically occurred”, the facts reported must correspond to the truth, if not absolutely, at least as reasonably perceived by the person reporting them.
The Supreme Court further specified that a witness is certainly required to give testimony and cannot be sanctioned for providing an account that is unfavourable to the employer. However, this does not mean that any statement made in court proceedings is automatically beyond disciplinary scrutiny.
According to the Court, indeed, “the disciplinary relevance of a statement, recorded in witness testimony, which is knowingly or negligently untrue cannot be ruled out a priori”, where, by reason of its content, context and seriousness, it is capable of affecting the relationship of trust.
The Supreme Court also observed that the fact that the statement was made in the context of proceedings does not remove its potential harmful effect. Indeed, the disciplinary allegation did not concern the external dissemination of the accusations, but the alleged alteration of the truth in court and the consequent impact on the relationship of trust.
Finally, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of retaliatory dismissal, clarifying that not every dismissal imposed as a result of testimony given by an employee can automatically be classified as such. In order for the dismissal to be null and void, it must be established that the retaliatory intent was the sole and decisive reason for the dismissal. In the case at hand, the Court found that the lower courts had failed to verify both the truthfulness of the statements made and the actual existence of the requirements for an unlawful determining motive.
For these reasons, the challenged judgment was quashed and the case remitted to the Court of Appeal of Rome for a fresh examination of the dispute in light of the principles set out by the Supreme Court.