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

8 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the limits according to the Italian Data Protection Authority

The Italian Data Protection Authority (i.e. “Garante per la protezione dei dati personali”) has once again provided guidance on how employers should manage corporate email accounts after the…

8 Apr 2026

Oral dismissal: the burden of proof on the employee

With order no. 4077 of 23 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of oral dismissal, holding that an employee challenging the termination of the employment…

8 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… incompatibility between colleagues may justify the transfer of an employee? 

The Italian Supreme Court, with order no. 4198 of 25 February 2026, held that an employee’s transfer may be lawfully implemented also in the presence of a situation…

7 Apr 2026

The boundary between rest and inactivity in the management of working hours (AIDP – HR Online, 7 April 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Alesia Hima)

In the organizational language of companies, terms such as “breaks,” “waiting times,” or “downtime” are often used. In operational practice, these expressions tend to be treated almost as…

17 Mar 2026

Equal pay: green light for the decree on pay equality and wage transparency (People are People, 16 March 2026 – Claudia Cerbone, Martina De Angeli)

Claudia Cerbone and Martina De Angeli, professionals at the De Luca & Partners firm, author this article dedicated to the draft legislative decree approved last February 5 by…

10 Mar 2026

The transfer of the employee is lawful when there is incompatibility with the company environment (Camera di Commercio Italo-Francese, 10 March 2026 – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 4198 of 25 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) – Labour Section – reaffirmed that a situation of environmental incompatibility may justify…