Unemployment benefits and resignation following transfer beyond 50 km: distance alone is not sufficient, employer’s breach must be proven  

With order no. 10559 of 21 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of unemployment benefits (i.e. “NASpI”) in the context of resignations for just cause following an employee’s transfer. The Court held that entitlement to NASpI in the event of resignation requires that the resignation qualifies as for just cause under Article 3(2) of Legislative Decree no. 22/2015, which presupposes circumstances attributable to the employer amounting to a serious breach (or conduct capable of making the continuation of the employment relationship, even on a temporary basis, intolerable). Therefore, the mere fact of a significant distance resulting from the transfer of the workplace is not sufficient, in itself, to establish just cause for resignation and the resulting involuntary unemployment. 

Facts of the case 

The dispute originated from a claim brought by an employee seeking unemployment benefits following his resignation for just cause, allegedly due to the transfer of his workplace ordered by the employer. 

At first instance, the competent Court rejected the employee’s claim. 

Subsequently, the Court of Appeal of Genoa, with judgment no. 50/2025, overturned the first-instance decision and upheld the employee’s claim. The appellate court held that the relocation of the workplace to a considerable distance (from Genoa to Catania), exceeding 50 km from the employee’s residence, was in itself sufficient to constitute just cause for resignation. According to the Court of Appeal, this situation amounted to a “serious objective circumstance preventing the continuation of the employment relationship”, irrespective of the need to establish an actual breach by the employer. 

The decision of the Italian Supreme Court 

The Italian Social Security Institute (i.e. “INPS”) challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had erred in recognising just cause for resignation without first verifying the unlawfulness of the transfer, namely the absence of the “proven technical, organisational and production-related reasons” which, under Article 2103 of the Italian Civil Code, justify an employer’s transfer decision. According to INPS, only an unlawful transfer may constitute a serious breach by the employer capable of justifying resignation for just cause and, consequently, entitlement to NASpI. 

The Supreme Court upheld INPS’s appeal. The Court clarified that, in order to obtain NASpI following resignation, a mere situation of difficulty is not sufficient; rather, the resignation must qualify as for just cause under Article 2119 of the Italian Civil Code. This notion requires a circumstance that does not allow the continuation, even temporarily, of the employment relationship and that is attributable to a serious breach of contractual obligations by the employer. 

The Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in relying exclusively on the objective element of the significant distance of the new workplace, without carrying out the essential assessment of the existence of an employer’s breach. Indeed, entitlement to unemployment benefits is excluded where the employee voluntarily resigns despite having the possibility to continue the employment relationship. In the context of a transfer, such possibility exists where the transfer is lawful, namely supported by valid technical, organisational and production-related reasons. 

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, in order to recognise entitlement to NASpI, the lower court should have assessed whether the transfer was unlawful and thus constituted a breach by the employer capable of undermining the relationship of trust and making the continuation of the employment relationship intolerable. 

For these reasons, the Supreme Court set aside the appealed judgment and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal of Genoa, in a different composition, for a new assessment on the merits in line with the principles set out above. 

Note 

It should be noted that, with message no. 369 of 26 January 2018, INPS had summarised certain principles regarding involuntary unemployment for the purposes of granting unemployment benefits, recognising entitlement also in cases where the employment relationship is terminated by mutual agreement following the employee’s refusal to accept a transfer to another workplace more than 50 km from the employee’s residence or requiring more than 80 minutes to reach by public transport. 

INPS therefore recognises entitlement to NASpI in the case of mutual termination following a transfer, but not in the case of resignation for just cause due to a transfer (unless the employer’s breach is proven in court). 

In the order under review, the Supreme Court aligned with the principles set out by INPS. 

However, it should be noted that a recent line of first-instance case law (Court of Milan, judgment no. 4400 of 9 October 2024; Court of Reggio Calabria, judgment no. 1663 of 13 December 2024; Court of Catania, judgment no. 973 of 4 March 2025; Court of Monza, judgment no. 582 of 6 May 2025) has adopted a more substantive and opposite approach compared to the decision under review, recognising entitlement to NASpI also in cases of resignation for just cause following a transfer, without requiring proof of the employer’s breach. 

The main argument underlying this line of case law is the potential discriminatory treatment compared to the case of mutual termination, which is expressly recognised by INPS. Indeed, INPS grants NASpI to employees who terminate the relationship by mutual agreement following refusal of a transfer beyond 50 km / 80 minutes. 

Case law has therefore held that there is no logical reason to treat differently an employee’s resignation based on the same objective circumstances of hardship, as compared to mutual termination. In both cases, the employee’s decision to terminate the relationship is not entirely voluntary, but rather “induced” by a unilateral decision of the employer leading to a “significant change in working conditions”.