Categories: Insights, Case Law


28 Aug 2018

A demerger to avoid the regulations on collective dismissal is against the law

With two “twin” rulings (No. 19863 and No.  20620, the latter filed on 7 August), the Court of Cassation had the opportunity to express its opinion on the rules governing collective dismissals linked to corporate demergers. In the case in question, a company had performed a partial demerger – by assigning to two newly incorporate companies as many corporate branches – redistributing the overall work force among the three legal entities emerged from said transaction. Such a transaction, in the opinion of the Court of Cassation as well as in the opinion of the judges in charge, represents a fraudulent act when, in the period of the following 120 days, multiple dismissals for justified objective reasons take place. In fact, in the case in question a fraudulent attempt was identified – inter alia, concerning the requirements established in articles 4 and 24 of the Law No. 223/1991, thus in the procedure of informing and consulting the unions to safeguard and ensure the choice of employees in excess according to the law criteria – specifically due to the contractual link between the corporate action and the dismissals ordered. In fact, in the opinion of the Court, the corporate demerger allowed triggering individual dismissals subdivided among the newly formed companies (12 the employees dismissed, 4 for each), where the reduced size did not make it necessary to trigger the collective dismissal procedure of personnel. Therefore, even if the method used was lawful in itself, the result achieved was deemed unlawful. The deciding factor, in the opinion of the Court of Cassation, was the fact that upon a work organization that was essentially unchanged – where workers continued to carry out in the same corporate spaces the same tasks – the new corporate setup was solely formal, thus leading solely to a fragmentation of the work force.

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…