Milan Court: the appeal is dismissed because the claims are unfounded

With judgement dated 17 October 2017 the Labour Division of Milan Court dismissed the appeal filed by a former employee of one our Clients, who had taken legal action against the Company to obtain a ruling against her dismissal for just cause, with the consequences set forth by section 8 of Law no. 604/1966. With the same appeal, the worker also asked that the Company be ordered to pay (i) salary differences alleging that the job classification which had been allocated to her was incorrect; (ii) damages resulting from the alleged invalidity of her employment contract which was changed from a full-time contract to a part-time employment contract, under the threat of dismissal if she refused to sign the agreement and (iii) compensation for further financial and other damages allegedly incurred because during her employment she had been a victim of mobbing. As regards the dismissal of the employee, the Judge assigned to the case considered that the Company had fulfilled its burden of proof, since it had demonstrated the reasons that justified dismissal, and that no other jobs were open to employ her within the company. As regards the differences in salary due to the allegedly incorrect job classification allocated to the employee, in dismissing this claim the Judge stated that the classification levels allocated to the employee during the employment relationship complied with the duties assigned to the same and the level of responsibility and autonomy with which the employee was required to perform such duties. As regards the alleged invalidity of the agreement to change the employment relationship from a full-time contract to a part-time contract, the Judge stated the allegation made by the worker had not been proven and that the contract had been changed in full compliance with the applicable regulations in force at the time the events took place. Finally, in rejecting the claim that the worker had been a victim of many episodes of mobbing by the employer, pursuant to which the worker claimed to have incurred psychic personal injuries/existential damages, the Judge stated that no proof of these facts had been submitted in the preliminary investigation.