Categories: Insights, Publications · News, Publications

Tag: Dismissal, Licenziamento


4 Aug 2022

Legitimacy of dismissal and burden of proof on the employee, if a colleague was not dismissed for the same conduct (Modulo24 Contenzioso del Lavoro (Form24 Labour Litigation) of Il Sole 24 Ore, 4 August 2022, Vittorio De Luca, Marco Giangrande)

The Court of Cassation ruled on an employee’s appeal challenging his disciplinary dismissal for a traffic accident while driving a company vehicle, claiming unequal treatment with colleagues who had not suffered such a penalty in similar situations. The Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible and stated that for an unreasonable inequality assessment, the possible consideration of similar situations must be based on allegations present in the case, allowing a comparison

The fact addressed and ruling outcome

The case submitted to the Court of Cassation concerned an employee who challenged in court his disciplinary dismissal for having caused a road accident by damaging the bridge on the provincial road while driving his company vehicle.

A vehicle with a crane on top, driven by the employee, crashed against a provincial road bridge beam due to the crane incorrect positioning.

The employer company considered the accident a serious breach of contract. In addition, the employee failed to fill in a compulsory parking disk and tachograph, which attests to the vehicle speed. The company terminated his employment without notice.

In ruling no. 469/2019, the Court of Appeal of Bologna, rejected the complaint lodged by the employee against the Court of Ferrara decision which declared the employee dismissal lawful, due to the accident.

The local Court held that the dismissal was lawful, given the conduct seriousness which severely damaged the bond of trust, and considered the dismissal proportionate.

The appeal in Cassation

The employee challenged the ruling, appealing to the Court of Cassation, with a single ground of complaint, alleging unequal treatment with other colleagues who had engaged in similar conduct without being dismissed.

The appellant pointed out that the local Court had not considered the objection raised on the different treatment reserved to other employees for similar misconduct.

The worker referred to Court of Cassation principles according to which “ even if it is irrelevant for the existence of just cause or justified reason for dismissal, that a similar breach committed by another worker was assessed differently by the employer, and if the worker’s breach irreparably compromised the fiduciary relationship, those situations may remove the dismissal of its justificatory basis” ” (Court of Cassation ruling no. 14251/2015; Court of Cassation ruling no. 5546/2010; Court of Cassation ruling no. 10550/2013).

To better understand the reasoning behind the Court of Cassation’s decision, it is appropriate to mention the legal principle invoked by the appellant worker.

According to the Court of Cassation ruling no. 14251/2015, the Supreme Court’s well-established case law, states that, it is irrelevant for the existence of just cause or justified reason for dismissal, that a similar breach committed by another worker was assessed differently by the employer, if the worker’s breach irreparably compromised the fiduciary relationship.

Continue reading the full version published in Modulo24 Contenzioso Lavoro (Form24 Labour Litigation) of Il Sole 24 ore.

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

12 Oct 2026

“AI tools, remote work and confidential data: employer liability in a borderless environment” – IBA Conference 2026

At the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, our Managing Partner Vittorio De Luca moderated a panel on one of the most pressing challenges facing employers today: the…

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…