With Order No. 13722 of 11 May 2026, the Labour Section of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (Corte di Cassazione) held that an employee’s repeated lateness, resulting in failure to meet deadlines and breach of the company’s technical directives, may justify dismissal for just cause.
In the case at issue, a worker employed as a technical analyst had been dismissed for just cause by the employer following a series of conduct deemed to constitute serious breaches of duty. In particular, the employee had been accused of repeatedly and significantly delaying the start of the working activity—sometimes by several hours—as well as deficiencies in the performance of his duties, with negative effects on the company’s organisation and on the relationship with the client where he was assigned to work.
The Court of Appeal had upheld the legitimacy of the dismissal, finding proven a generally inadequate conduct of the employee, characterized by inefficiency, failure to comply with technical instructions, and poor-quality performance, such as to affect both the company’s reputation and its economic interests. In particular, it had emerged that the employee failed to meet deadlines, operated in a manner not consistent with the instructions received, and contributed to the loss of trust on the part of the client, ultimately leading to the breakdown of the business relationship.
The employee challenged this decision before the Supreme Court of Cassation, alleging, among other things, a violation of the right to evidence, the failure to consider certain defensive arguments, and an incorrect classification of his conduct as constituting just cause for dismissal. In particular, he argued that the trial court had not admitted all the evidence requested and that the alleged breaches were not sufficiently serious to justify dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the appeal in its entirety, confirming the reasoning of the lower courts.
First, it clarified that the right to evidence is not absolute, as it is for the trial judge to assess the relevance and necessity of evidentiary means, including by selecting the witnesses deemed most appropriate. Such an assessment, if adequately reasoned, is not subject to review in proceedings on points of law.
With regard to just cause for dismissal, the Court reiterated established principles concerning general clauses, emphasizing that the assessment of the seriousness of the breach and the breakdown of the trust relationship falls within the factual evaluation reserved to the trial judge.
In the present case, the Court found that the lower courts had correctly considered a set of elements—including repeated delays, inadequate technical performance, and the deterioration of the client relationship—capable of demonstrating a serious breach of the duties of diligence and fairness. These behaviors were deemed indicative of a substantial inability or unwillingness of the employee to comply with company directives, resulting in an irreparably damaged trust relationship.
In conclusion, the ruling confirms that conduct characterized by repeated organizational and professional breaches, where it significantly affects business operations and client relationships, may constitute just cause for dismissal. The assessment of its seriousness and its ability to undermine the trust relationship lies with the trial judge and, if properly reasoned, is not subject to review in cassation proceedings.