Categories: Insights


31 Aug 2016

Court of Cassation: information due to the employer during an employee’s absence for sickness

With sentence no. 15226 dated 22 July 2016, the Court of Cassation rejected the petition of a female employee seeking to overturn the sentence of the court of Appeals which upheld her dismissal for disciplinary reasons i.e. absenteeism because of her failure to submit a medical certificate. In the account of the employee, she went to her GP to obtain an extension to the medical certificate, which had expired, but the GP was absent. His replacement sent the certificate to the INPS website. However, the judges of the lower courts ruled that (i) the employee had not promptly notified the employer of her absence, as specified in the national employment agreement for the sector, and (ii) the relevant certificate never reached the Institute [INPS] nor was any evidence provided that the replacement GP had attempted to send it. According to the Court, the concept of unjustified absence, cited in the letter of dismissal, does not refer only to «the lack of justification in an absolute sense» but also to «failure to notify the employer of the existence of the illness or its extension». Asking the GP for a certificate does not meet the requirement for diligence, since the employee is obliged to promptly to notify his/her absence to the employer and to verify the proper outcome of the online procedure and transmission of the sickness certificate. The employee, in fact, may only not send the hard copy form of the certificate, this obligation having been replaced by e-mail transmission by the GP to the Institute.

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…