Categories: Insights, Case Law


26 Feb 2017

Top managers who do not make use of vacation days are not entitled to receive substitutive allowance

The Court of Cassation, with judgement no. 2000 dated 26 January 2017, ruled once again on the right of top managers to obtain substitutive allowance for any accrued vacation days not taken and on the related burden of proof. Specifically, the Court stated that this right (and the resulting burden of proof) is closely connected to the role covered by the manager within the company. Therefore, the so-called top managers or any managers who, due to their indisputable role, are in a position not to have to report in detail their personal decisions on vacation days, are not entitled to receive the related substitutive allowance if they have not taken their vacation days regularly during their employment relationship, unless they can prove the recurrence of absolutely exceptional and objective company needs, representing impediments to the aforementioned enjoyment. On the other hand, non-managerial personnel or otherwise personnel without the power of self-determining their vacation days, is subjected to the general principle that the employee in order to obtain the substitutive allowance for vacation days not taken has only the burden of proving he/she worked in the days allocated, while the burden of the employer is to prove that such days were paid.

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

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…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…