Categories: News, Press review

Tag: Coronavirus, Datore di lavoro, smart working


17 Mar 2020

The companies that didn’t want to use remote working? According to Mr. Vittorio De Luca they can be held liable, if a worker is infected

Here is the comment about Vittorio De Luca, published by Affari Italiani.

In terms of Remote Working and spread of the Covid-19 virus, Vittorio De Luca, of Studio De Luca & Partners comments: “We are in the middle of an emergency and many companies have suddenly been forced to seek and adopt alternatives to normal job performance. In other words, companies had to rethink and reorganise their work from one day to the next and re-evaluate so-called Remote Working. But what happens to all those companies that did not want or could not adopt this new approach to work? First of all, until this Covid-19 emergency is over, employers will not be completely free to decide whether or not to use to agile work. The Prime Ministerial Decree of 11 March calls for maximum use of agile working arrangements by companies for activities that can be carried out at home or remotely.

It is also necessary to bear in mind that employers have a precise obligation to protect the mental-physical health of workers based on article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code. Entrepreneurs are required to take measures in running the company which, according to the particular nature of the work, experience and technique, are necessary to protect the physical and moral integrity of workers. Therefore, employers must adopt all measures strictly imposed by law in relation to the specific type of activity carried out, general measures dictated by common prudence and all other measures that are actually necessary to protect workers according to the specific nature of the work, experience and technique. Employers who violate this obligation run the risk of being held liable  for any contagion and its spread. Employers could therefore be called upon to compensate employees for any injury suffered and to answer for offences that give rise to the company’s administrative liability”.

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

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…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…