Categories: Insights, Case Law


1 May 2018

Unlawful dismissal for not having objected a criminal offence to a subordinate

With its judgement No. 8407 lodged on 5 April 2018, the Court of Cassation declared the disciplinary dismissal notified to a female employee unlawful. On two occasions, she failed to stop another employee, who was a subordinate, from stealing pellet bags from the employer’s outlet, just limiting herself to warn her managers on both occasions. In the case at issue and during the first episode, the employee had warned her own head of sector – who, however, did not give her any instructions whatsoever as to the measures to be taken – and, on the occasion of the second episode, she had warned the branch’s assistant. According to the company, instead of reporting the facts to her own managers, the employee should have verbally objected the perpetration of the criminal offence to her own subordinate, in compliance with the obligations of fairness, good faith and loyalty towards the employer. By upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal having territorial jurisdiction, the Court of Cassation stated the following principle of law: “in so far as dismissal for disciplinary reasons is concerned, even if the rules and regulations under the collective bargaining agreements foresee a certain behaviour as just cause or justified subjective grounds for withdrawal, the judge vested with the right to challenge the lawfulness of the dismissal must in any event check the actual seriousness of the behaviour with which the employee has been charged” (Cass. No. 16095/2013; Cass. No. 21633/2013). The Court of Cassation also clarified that “(…) the infliction of the highest disciplinary penalty is solely justified upon a considerable breach of the contractual obligations, or even such as not to allow the continuation, even temporary, of the employment”. By abiding by these principles, the Court of Cassation deemed that the employee had acted correctly, therefore declaring the employer’s withdrawal from the employment to be unlawful. Consequently, prior to expediting any dismissal, it is always necessary to check whether the seriousness of the behaviour – even if sanctioned by the collective bargaining agreement – is such as to justify the withdrawal.

 

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…