Categories: Insights, Case Law


1 May 2018

Carrying out a working activity during one’s leave may be a cause of dismissal

The Court of Cassation, with its judgement No. 6893 of 20 March 2018, declared the dismissal for cause notified to an employee to be lawful, as a result of having carried out another working activity during the days of leave for serious family reasons. In the case at issue, following the investigation ordered by the employer, it emerged that the employee – “precisely complying with the timetable” – went to a real estate company’s office, of which the employee was manager and technical director, during the days in which the employee benefitted from the above-mentioned leave. Above all and by making cross-reference to one of its own stances, the Court considered that the investigative controls ordered by the employer had been lawful, since justified by the suspicion of the “perpetration of breaches of the lawby the employee, which cannot be traced back to the mere breach of the employment obligation and carried out outside working times. The Court then laid stress on the objective seriousness of the behaviour, since the employee had used the leave (granted “for serious and documented family reasons”) for purposes unrelated thereto and, moreover, forbidden (pursuant to the provisions under article 4 of Law No. 53/2000 “During such period the employee kept the respective job (…) and cannot carry out any type of working activity”). In this respect the Court, apart from anything else, made cross-reference to one of its stances based on which “the use of one’s leave to carry out a different working activity amounts to abuse due to diversion of the distinctive purpose of the right, fit to amount to just cause for dismissal”. In the Court’s opinion, it must be added that any such behaviour is detrimental to the employer’s good faith, which sees itself unfairly deprived of the employee’s work. Finally, the Court highlighted that it is not necessary to post up the disciplinary code beforehand upon any breach (as in the case at issue) of law provisions and, in any event, of fundamental duties of the employee, which may be recognised as such without it being necessary to foresee them specifically.

 

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…