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

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…