Categories: Insights


28 Feb 2016

Ministry of Labour: who keeps silent has no right to priority

By replying to questioning No. 7/2016 raised by Confindustria, the Ministry of Labour provides clarification on the right to priority and on contributory exemption. In particular, the Ministry of Labour was requested whether the employer may benefit from the contributory exemption under article 1, paragraph 118, of Law No. 190/2014, for the purposes of hiring for an indefinite term/for the purposes of turning fixed-term employment into indefinite term employment in the event that another employee, having ceased his/her fixed-term employment or with a fixed-term employment contract still in force, has not exercised the right to priority prior to the hiring. The Ministry has clarified that the employee who keeps silent has no right to priority to any hiring for an indefinite term with the employer where he/she has carried out the fixed-term employment and the latter may hire other staff and have recourse to the contributory exemption under Law No. 190/2014. The Ministry has thus taken an important stance in connection with the importance of the right to priority in fixed-term employment contracts, following the provision under article 24 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015. In short, the Ministry does not consider it a right automatically vested in the employee merely due to the fact of having carried out fixed-term employment, whereby an express written declaration to said extent will be needed.

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…