Categories: Insights, Practice

Tag: contratto a termine, fixed-term contracts, INPS, Ispettorato Nazionale del Lavoro


5 Jan 2021

Fixed-term contracts in “assisted form”: the clarifications of INPS

The National Employment Inspectorate (the ”NEI”), with note no. 1156 dated 22 December 2020, provided to the territorial inspectorates clarifications on the procedure to be followed in the event of a request to enter into a fixed-term contract in assisted form in accordance with Art. 19, paragraph 3 of Italian Legislative Decree 81/2015. This refers, in particular, to cases where derogations are made from the requirements envisaged by the legislation by virtue of a “proximity contract” lacking the requirement of greater representativeness.

Relevant regulations

The fixed-term contract may not have a total duration exceeding 24 months or the longer duration envisaged by the industry’s National Collective Labour Agreement, subject to the possibility, in accordance with Art. 19, paragraph 3 of Italian Legislative Decree 81/2015, of signing a further contract having a term of 12 months at the relevant Territorial Employment Inspectorate.

Art. 8 of Italian Decree Law 138/2011, converted into Italian Law 148/2011, states that collective agreements signed at company or territorial level by trade union associations comparatively most representative on a national basis may implement specific agreements with effect in relation to all workers involved. The agreements may concern the regulation of issues related to the organisation of work and production with reference, inter alia, to fixed-term contracts.  

Clarifications of the NEI

The note in question specifies that the Inspectorate’s activity must be limited to verifying (i) the completeness and formal correctness of the fixed-term contract, (ii) the genuineness of the worker’s consent and (iii) the signature of the same. However, if violations of the imperative rules are identified (e.g. lack of justifying causes), the recourse to the “assisted procedure” will not be admissible.

In the case submitted to the NEI, the derogation from the requirements envisaged by the legislation on fixed-term contracts derived from the regulation contained in proximity contracts signed in accordance with Art. 8 of Italian Decree Law 138/2011 (converted into Italian Law 148/2011).

In that regard, the NEI specifies that if the proximity contracts were signed in violation of Art. 8 – with particular reference to constraints of purpose, in addition to those imposed by the Constitution or, also, in relation to the requirement of greater comparative representativeness of the signatory organisations – they have no effect. Therefore, it will not be possible to enter into further fixed-term contracts according to the “assisted procedure” in application of these proximity contracts.

On the point, then, the NEI cited the indications provided with circular no. 3/2018 relating to circumstances of proximity agreements entered into by associations not having the requirements of representativeness required by Art. 8 of Italian Decree Law 138/2011.

In particular, with this circular, the NEI clarified that proximity contracts signed by entities “not authorised” may not produce effects of derogating from the provisions of law and regulations envisaged by the National Collective Labour Agreement. During the assessment, the inspectors must consider these contracts ineffective and adopt the consequent measures.

With reference to fixed-term contracts, in the same circular, the NEI stated that if the employer has applied rules dictated by a collective agreement not signed by the comparatively most representative organisations, the effects derogating or supplementing the regulatory rules cannot be applied. This, according to the NEI, involves the lack of application of the flexibility institutions envisaged by Italian Legislative Decree no. 81/2015 and, depending on the circumstances, also the “transformation” of the employment relationship into a permanent employment relationship.

Altri insights correlati:

Covid-19 emergency, dismissals for justified objective reason and extension renewals of fixed-term contracts

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

20 May 2026

Webinar “May 1st Decree: Key Updates and what’s New” –  HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

On the occasion of our webinar “An HR Coffee with De Luca Partners,” the speakers Silvia Zulato, Senior Associate, and Alessandro Riccardo Polli from the Labour Consulting Division…

12 May 2026

Legitimate dismissal for false attendance reporting and misuse of access system data (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 7985 of 31 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section – confirmed the lawfulness of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an…

30 Apr 2026

Webinar “Bonuses: What Do You Need to Know About Objectives?” – HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

Yesterday, during our first webinar “HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners", the speakers Vittorio De Luca, Managing Partner, and Alessandra Zilla, Managing Associate at De Luca &…

27 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the Italian Data Protection Authority extends the right of access to all emails in the individual email account 

“An employee may access the messages in their corporate email account and the documents stored on their computer after the termination of employment. Any limitations must be justified by specific…

27 Apr 2026

Unemployment benefits and resignation following transfer beyond 50 km: distance alone is not sufficient, employer’s breach must be proven  

With order no. 10559 of 21 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of unemployment benefits (i.e. “NASpI”) in the context of resignations for just cause following…

27 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… the probationary period clause is null and void if the duties are described in generic terms? 

The Court of Milan, with judgment no. 683 of 3 April 2026, reaffirmed that a probationary clause (i.e. “patto di prova”) is valid only if it contains a specific indication of the duties subject to…