Categories: Insights, Case Law


26 Mar 2017

Disciplinary dismissal: double checking by the judge

The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 7166 dated 21 March 2017 has once again deliberated on the subject matter of disciplinary dismissal. In this specific case, the employee, holding the position of emergency technical manager was dismissed after a disciplinary proceeding for having refused to respond to two subsequent support calls respectively for a loss of pressure and a gas leak. The worker filed a claim at the Court of First Instance to declare the dismissal unlawful, but his case was rejected. Therefore, he appealed. The Territorial Court, in a reversal to the judgement of the previous court, declared the dismissal unlawful and ordered the employer to reintegrate the employee in his/her role. In fact, the Court noted that the charge filed against the employee fell within the cases that the National Collective Bargaining Agreement — applied to the work relationship– punished, lacking recurrence, by way of a disciplinary action short of termination. Against the Territorial Court judgement, the employer filed an appeal at the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation judges, in the judgement in hand, clarified that the trial judge must double check the correspondence of the disciplinary collective provisions respect to what is established in article 2106 of the Italian Civil Code and determine the invalidity of those that establish as just cause or justified reasons for dismissal the conducts that are by their nature subject only to disciplinary actions short of termination. According to the Supreme Court, the trial judge cannot instead do the opposite, that is expand the list of just causes or justified reasons for dismissal beyond what is established by the independence of the parties. On that basis, the Court of Cassation established that in terms of disciplinary actions, it is necessary to assess the gravity of the breach from an objective and subjective stand point as well as from the stand point of future reliability of the employee regarding the performance established in the contract.

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…