Categories: Insights, Case Law


1 Jan 2017

Dismissal for justified objective grounds cannot be based on the intentional behaviour of an employee

With its judgement no. 23735 dated 22 November 2016, the Court of Cassation once again draws the boundaries between ontologically disciplinary dismissal and dismissal for justified objective grounds. In the case in question, the reason given for dismissal for justified objective grounds submitted to the Court was “the almost total absence of concurrence, between your obligations to us, and the services actually provided by you (also in terms of results), that must inevitably be linked to the failure to adapt – although (…) this was repeatedly urged – to the needs (behavioural, productive, evaluation, etc.) that market developments, on the other hand, entail”. The Court pointed out that on the question of dismissal of an individual, a justified objective ground should in any case be excluded when, over and above the reasons alleged by the company, such dismissal is based on conduct involving an intentional behaviour of the worker that is detrimental to his/her contractual duties. The Court also pointed out that organisational reasons claimed as reason for dismissal for justified objective grounds may be applicable in specific conditions relevant to the worker, provided the same are objective circumstances that cause the employer to lose interest in the services, such as unexpected unfitness for service including a physical disability, imprisonment, suspension of a driving licence or administrative authorisation, a lack of the professional qualifications required, and that substantially therefore do not imply a breach by the employer. In this way, the Court held that although the case of dismissal submitted to its attention had officially been described by the employer as dismissal for justified objective grounds, the same should be considered, in view of its characteristics, as a case of disciplinary dismissal.

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

3 Aug 2026

Pay Transparency: the first requests from employees are starting to arrive (Il Sole 24 Ore, 3 august 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Two months after the decree. Since Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7 June, according to a flash survey conducted by GIDP, 8% of HR directors have…

30 Jul 2026

Corporate controls and data protection: what balance?

A recent judgment of the Court of Pisa, No. 800 of 13 June 2026, addresses a topic of particular interest for companies: the delicate balance between the protection…

30 Jul 2026

Unfair dismissal and reinstatement: the employee must repay the payment in lieu of notice

With order no. 22187 of 28 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment in lieu of notice paid to an employee must be…

30 Jul 2026

Did you know that… an employee’s natural incapacity does not prevent the time limit for challenging a dismissal from running?

In judgment no. 23486 of 18 July 2026, the Joint Chambers of the Italian Supreme Court (i.e. “Corte di Cassazione”) held that the natural incapacity of an employee…

22 Jul 2026

An employee may not steer clients toward a competitor before resigning (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia, 22 July 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 1723 of 26 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) confirmed the liability of an employee who, prior to the termination of his…

20 Jul 2026

Access to Naspi (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 20 July 2026 – Vittorio De Luca e Alessandra Zilla)

Regulatory Framework  The New Social Insurance for Employment (NASpI), introduced by Legislative Decree No. 22 of 4 March 2015, is the primary income support scheme for employees who…