The employer’s unilateral withdrawal from a second-level agreement is legitimate

In Judgment no. 98 of 7 February 2018, the Court of Frosinone rejected the appeal filed by a worker, who had resigned, against his former employer. More specifically, the worker argued that the withdrawal of his employer from a supplementary agreement of 1988 establishing a 14^th-month pay, unilaterally effected in 2014, was illegitimate due to violation of the principle of the inviolability of remuneration pursuant to Article 36, Italian Constitution, and Article 2103, Italian Civil Code. The worker maintained in essence that the 14^th pay originates in the contract between the parties established at the time of hiring. The company properly filed an appearance before the court, arguing that its own actions were legitimate and requesting, as an effect thereof, rejection of the appeal with release from any demand laid down therein. The Court of first degree, accepting in full the arguments of the company, remarked that a collective agreement, without providing for an effective term (as in the case at hand) cannot bind the contracting parties indefinitely. This is so because it would stultify the cause and social function of collective bargaining, whose regulatory norms – which have always been based on not excessively long time limits – must relate to a constantly evolving socioeconomic context. Therefore – according to the Court – collective bargaining must be subject to the application of the rule – generally applied to private agreements – according to which a unilateral withdrawing constitutes an ordinary cause of termination of any contract with an indefinite duration. Not only that; the Court has stressed that in the case at hand it has never been agreed with the appellant on a personal level that the remuneration was to include a 14^th monthly pay, because this had been recognized exclusively on the basis of a second-level agreement. Moreover, the Court pointed out that the appellant in claiming a violation of Article 36, Italian Constitution, on the basis only of the non-payment of the 14^th monthly pay, failed to prove that the constitutionally guaranteed minimum pay had been violated, which, in its opinion, is however to be excluded based on the paychecks produced for the purpose of the proceedings.