Categories: Insights


3 Jul 2014

Leaves according to Law 104/92 to relatives of third degree (Il Sole 24 Ore, July 1, 2014, page 33)

Three days paid leaves per month to look after relatives with serious disability can be asked also for relatives and relatives in-law until third degree if the disabled person has not a spouse or parents who can look after him/her. With the note 19 of June 26, 2014, Labour Ministry clarified that this is the only requirement and it is not significant that there are other relatives or relatives in-law of lower degree who could look after the disabled person. The employee may require three days leaves for looking after a third degree relative or relative in-law, if the parents or spouse of the disabled person are in the following conditions: (a) are 65 years old at least, (b) are disabled persons as well, and (c) died or missing. “Missing” means not just the natural or juridical absence, but any other condition certified by the judicial authority or other public authority, such as divorce, legal separation or abandonment. Third degree relatives are great-grandfathers, grandnieces and grandnephews, uncles, nieces and nephews, while third degrees relatives in-law are the relatives (of the same degree) of the spouse. Moreover, the Ministry specified that it is not possible to allow leaves to more than one employee for looking after the same disabled person: this is the so called “unique representative” introduced by the art. 24 of Law 183/2010, which has deeply modified the matter.
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…