Categories: Insights, Case Law


25 Jun 2018

Lawful investigation activity of the employer, but with limits

With its judgment No. 15094 of 11 June 2018, the Court of Cassation has stated that the controls carried out through an investigation agency (or security guards) may in no way concern the fulfilment or the breach of the contractual obligation, but must only limit themselves at ascertaining the carrying out of unlawful acts carried out by the employee, even when the employment is carried out outside the company’s premises. In said context, the Court mentions some examples of lawful investigation control, that is when the employee (i) carries out a paid activity in favour of third parties during working time; (ii) carries out specific offences (sells a product or steals the collected amount), or (iii) carries out outside work related activities, thus infringing the competition prohibition (causing damage to the employer). In other words, in order to act lawfully, the investigator “cannot go beyond the limits of the supervision of employment” since such control is directly reserved, pursuant to article 3 of the Workers’ Statute, to the employer or to its own collaborators, whose names and whose duties must be communicated to the employee. Otherwise, the investigation controls ordered are to be deemed unlawful with the corresponding unlawfulness of the resulting 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…