De Luca & Partners’ Think Tank manages and coordinates research, training (internal and external) and editorial activities on labour law matters, protection of personal data and administrative liability of entities.
De Luca & Partners invests in researching and disseminating Employment Law material and for this reason collaborates with Il Sole 24 Ore and with the main employment law publications.
Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 5963 of March 11, stated that a company that cancels a professional position is not obliged to train the relevant employee for different duties, but it can dismiss him/her when equivalent duties to be assigned do not exist.
On March 20, the Ministry of Labor signed the decree that enforces for the “disadvantaged employees” the possibility of entering into a temporary supply contract without technical, productive, organizational and substitutive needs, necessary for a term provision.
Amending the rules of individual dismissals, “Fornero Reform” extended the terms for challenging out of Court the fixed term contract in the case of unlawful term provision (Law no. 92/2012 amended Article 32 of Law no. 183/2010).
Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 4301 of February 21, 2013, stated that the downgrading of the employee for organizational needs, if it is guaranteed in a prevailing way the performance of the ordinary duties.
Court of Cassation, labor section, with sentence no. 4559 of February 22, 2013, stated that the termination of an employee who, during the sickness leave, goes hunting with friends.
An employee, after his/her dismissal in 2013, can register for VAT number to exercise an autonomous activity applying the system of the “super-minimum”.
Nowadays the stipulation of fixed term contracts in order to start up a new entrepreneurial activity is simpler if the employer is a innovative start-up company. The Development Decree 2.0, converted in the Law no. 221 of December 17, 2012, states that for the innovative start-up does not apply the clause regarding reasons justifying the fixed term contracts, i.e. the “technical, productive, organizational and replacing reasons” that other companies have to apply in the case of fixed term hiring.
Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 1693 of January 24, stated that the subordinate employee’s refusal of carrying out his work performance (e.g. in the case he/she is assigned to lower duties) can be lawful and, therefore, make unlawful the dismissal based on the principle of “self-protection” in the equivalent performances contract, if the refusal is balanced to the unlawful behavior of the employer and in compliance with the principle of good faith.
