Categories: Insights, Case Law

Tag: Demansionamento


28 Jan 2018

Refusal of service is justified only in the case of serious default by the employer

 The Court of Cassation, with judgement No. 836 dated 16 January 2018 overturned the judgement issued by the Court of the Appeals having local jurisdiction, which agreeing to the conclusions reached by the judge of first instance, had confirmed the unlawfulness of the dismissal ordered to an employee, who, by refusing to perform demoting tasks, failed to go to work for more than four days. The Court of Appeals, ordering the reintegration of the employee at work pursuant to article 18, Law No. 300/70, deemed such behaviour as a legitimate form of self-protection pursuant to article 1460 of the Civil Code The Court of Cassation – while confirming the demotion and the partial application of the requirements for the application of the aforementioned civil law – accepted the employer’s appeal (losing party in the proceedings on the merits) on the principle that the assignment to demoted tasks does not authorise the worker to refuse to provide service at all. This is valid where the employer (as in the specific case) meets its primary obligations such as payment of salary, social security contributions and insurance, in addition to health and safety protection. In summary, only in the case of employer’s full default then refusal to provide service is allowed and deemed justified. Otherwise, what occurs is a conduct in violation of the principle of good faith as established in article 1460 of the Civil Code, in addition to the duties of due diligence and submittal to the hierarchical authority of the employer.

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…