Categories: Insights


24 Feb 2011

Labour: clarification on secondment

Court of Cassation (sentence no. 23933/2010) and Ministry of Labor (note no. 1, February 2, 2011) clarified some terms and conditions of secondment, regulated by Article 30, Legislative Decree no. 276/2003.
In particular, according to the Court, temporariness does not coincide with shortness: the lawfulness of the employee’s secondment to perform his/her activity in the interest of a third party does not depend on the duration of the secondment itself but on the fact that the employer’s interest in the employee’s performance for the third party occurs for the whole duration. Temporariness, in fact, has to be referred to the employer’s interest into the concrete performance of the activity and not in the unlawful staff leasing.
The note of the Ministry of Labor has specified that, in order to evaluate the secondment lawfulness, the place where the employee is seconded has not necessarily to coincide with the premises of the receiving company. Granted that the requirements for the secondment occur (also within a company group) the employer can second the employee also to places different from the premises of the receiving company and also in more than one place (e.g. transport activity that requires travels).
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

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…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…