The Court of Cassation, with judgement no. 21438 dated 30 August 2018, ruled again on the subject matter of dismissal for cancellation of the job position. More specifically, a worker – among other things – had filed an opposition against the dismissal imposed on him, seeking annulment thereof, as he considered it retaliatory, and consequently, payment of a non-reinstatement allowance, equal to 15 monthly pays of the last comprehensive salary actually received, and the payment of damage in the amount of 14 monthly pays of his last actual comprehensive salary. In reviewing the judgment of the court of first instance, the Court of Appeal found the dismissal unlawful, even though in its opinion it was not discriminatory. This decision was due to the fact that the company had not proven the reasons why the petitioner had been dismissed, while other employees that performed the same duties and had less seniority than him had not been dismissed. Since the Court of Appeal found that the prerequisites for the actual protection regime did not apply, it condemned the employer to pay an allowance in the amount of 6 monthly pays of the last comprehensive salary actually received by the worker. In filing an appeal against this decision, the company argued, among other things, that in the course of the proceedings it had proven that (i) the closing of the division had been necessary due to critical circumstances of the company and (ii) in continuing the business, the company had preferred the use of semi-finished products, thus saving another sector. Therefore, in its opinion, the workers employed in such sector could not been dismissed, since the petitioner had never worked in it and lacked the necessary skills. The Court of Cassation found the above ground inadmissible on the assumption that the court of first instance had established, on the basis of preliminary findings and the submitted documents, that “there had been a mere reduction in the production activities” and that the company “had deemed it proper to privilege certain sectors without suppressing any”. Also, the company complained about the violation and wrongful application of Article 5, Law no. 223/1991, because the dismissal was not due to a reduction of equivalent and replaceable personnel but to the suppression of a sector of activities, whose one and only employee was the appellant. The Court of Cassation also rejected the above complaint. On this point, making reference to previous rulings of its own, the Court of Cassation first noted that the cause for dismissal should be evaluated by the employer, without the court having a say so on the selection of the company’s management criteria, in accordance with Article 41 of the Constitution. The Court of Cassation then reiterated that a dismissal for justified objective reasons is considered lawful if the conditions referred to in Article 3, Law no. 604/1966 are met. This means: a) cancellation of the division/job in which the worker is employed, without necessarily suppressing all duties previously assigned to him/her; b) attribution of the cancellation to the employer’s plans and choices that affect the undertaking’s structure and organization – the adequacy and appropriateness of which cannot be questioned by a court of law, provided they are real and not simulated; and c) impossibility to employ the worker in other duties. The Court of Cassation also remarked that the burden of proving the satisfaction of these pre-requisites rests on the employer, who can fulfil it also by way of presumptions. The worker’s obligation to prove the existence of assignable positions is expressly excluded. Also, according to the Court, if the justified objective reason consists of a generic reduction of homogeneous and replaceable personnel, neither the normal criterion of the job position to cancel nor the criterion of the impossibility to carry out a repêchage are applicable, because the former is no longer necessary and because all job positions are equivalent and all workers are potentially dismissible. Nonetheless, the choice of the worker to dismiss is not at the absolute discretion of the employer, which is however limited by the prohibition to discriminate and by the rules of correctness and good faith, pursuant to Articles 1175 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code. On the matter, the Court of Cassation remarked that the judges discussed the issue of how to identify in practical terms the criteria that allow deeming said choice compliant with the aforementioned principles, deeming that it is necessary to refer, even while taking into account the diversity of the respective regimes, to the criteria established by Article 5 of Law No. 223/1991 governing collective dismissals, where the trade union agreement fails to indicate alternative criteria for such choice. Consequently, according to the Court of Cassation, in the case at hand, by the same token, the criteria of dependent family members and seniority level can be taken into consideration, given that the technical/productive and organizational needs are irrelevant, in the light of a full replaceability of workers. In other words, according to the Court of Cassation, even if several positions are interchangeable, where the criterion of the impossibility to carry out a repêchage does not apply, the employer should select the worker to dismiss on the basis of correctness and good faith. These principles – the Court went on to say – can be considered fulfilled if the employer, in selecting the workers to dismiss, keeps into account the criteria applied in collective dismissals, that is to say, the presence of dependent family members and seniority.
