By judgment no. 4703 of 13 October 2026, the Court of Milan reaffirmed that a disciplinary dismissal imposed without prior notification of the allegations is unlawful and, where the relevant conditions are met, entails the employee’s reinstatement. Indeed, the absence of such notification does not constitute a mere formal breach, but results in the entire disciplinary procedure being deemed non-existent.
In the case at hand, an employee had been dismissed for conduct in the workplace which the company described as repeatedly violent and overbearing towards other employees, creating a climate of dissatisfaction and a deterioration in general working conditions. However, the dismissal had been imposed without these actions having first been the subject of disciplinary charges. The dismissal letter, dated 23 December 2025, was sent to the employee via WhatsApp on 9 January 2026, together with the message: «You’re fired, that’s enough, I don’t want you anymore».
The Court first observed that, although the letter contained contradictory indications as to the legal classification of the termination, the reasons underlying the dismissal concerned conduct attributed to the employee and the breach of his contractual duties. The dismissal was therefore disciplinary in nature and, as such, had to be preceded by the procedure laid down in Article 7 of the Workers’ Statute, which is intended, among other things, to safeguard the employee’s right of defence.
Referring to the case law of the Italian Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that the complete absence of prior notification of the allegations renders the entire disciplinary procedure non-existent and does not constitute a mere procedural irregularity. A disciplinary dismissal imposed without the employee having first been notified of the allegations underlying the decision must therefore be regarded as unjustified, with the consequent application of reinstatement protection.
In the case at hand, moreover, the employer company had not entered an appearance in the proceedings and had therefore failed to provide evidence of the facts underlying the dismissal. The Court consequently annulled the dismissal and ordered the employee’s immediate reinstatement, also ordering the company to pay the compensation provided for by law and the related social security and welfare contributions.
In conclusion, the judgment confirms the importance, for an employer intending to proceed with a disciplinary dismissal, of notifying the employee in advance of the facts on which the measure is based, thereby allowing the employee to exercise their right of defence. The complete omission of this step does not constitute a mere formal irregularity, but may result in the dismissal being annulled and the employee being reinstated.