Categories: Insights, Case Law


29 Jan 2017

Mandatory repêchage in affiliated companies: the burden of proof must be borne by the employer

The Court of Cassation, with judgment No. 160 dated 05 January 2017, issued a new judgement on mandatory repêchage in affiliated companies. In the case under review, an employee was dismissed for justified objective grounds by a subsidiary company whose 80% was owned by another one, without offering any repêchage possibility. Against the dismissal, the employee submitted a request to the Court of first instance to obtain recognition of the existence of a single employer in the employment relationship and a declaration of unlawfulness of the dismissal issued, with the consequent joint and several decision against the two companies for failure to fulfil the repêchage obligation. The Court of first instance, as well as the Court of Appeal having territorial jurisdiction, in rejecting the employee’s claim, stated that the worker had to prove the essential factors for the recognition of the existence of a single employer, such as the integration between the activities carried out by the various companies of the group, the management, technical and financial coordination etc. Finally, the worker submitted an application to the Court of Cassation. According to the Supreme Court, the trial courts failed to consider two elements, including the clear connection between the two companies on the basis of which the identification of redundant personnel should include the entire corporate group. Moreover, in the opinion of the Court of Cassation, the employer must bear the burden of proof related to the fulfilment of the repêchage obligation by virtue of the proof-proximity principle.

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…