10 Mar 2021

Substitute meal voucher for shift employees (Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto – Il Sole 24 Ore, 10 March 2021 – Enrico De Luca, Claudia Cerbone)

Employees who work a daily shift exceeding 6 hours, must be granted a substitute meal voucher if they are unable to use the canteen service or if, due to their job, they are not able to take a break.

This principle expressed by the Court of Cassation, which, with ruling no. 5547 of 1 March 2021, returned to review the meal voucher issue, clarified an unclear aspect of collective bargaining of the Healthcare segment, forming an important precedent for healthcare companies that do not grant shift workers a break, to ensure no interruption of service.

The case the Court was asked to rule on is related to a hospital employee who worked a 7 hour afternoon shift (from 1:00 pm to 8:00 pm) and an 11 hour night shift (from 8:00 pm to 7:00 am). The employee could not use the canteen service offered by the hospital since the job he performed could not be suspended and there was no evening canteen service offered.

The Court and Appeals Court of Messina granted the employee’s appeal acknowledging his right to be granted meal vouchers for each shift exceeding 6 hours, as well as compensation for damages for having paid for the daily meal at his own expense.

Specifically, according to the regional Court the right to a meal voucher is based on the provisions of art. 29, paragraph 2, supplementary collective contract of the Healthcare segment and art. 8 of Legislative Decree 66/2003 which states that the right to canteen service must be identified with the right to a break and that, therefore, must be granted to all employees who work daily hours exceeding 6 hours.

The hospital appealed to Cassation based on a single point of law, that the Court of Appeals, with the challenged ruling, had erroneously represented the right to a break with the right to canteen service. The hospital, in particular, argues, on one hand, that the criterion for granting the right to canteen service is the impossibility to eat outside the workplace in relation to the organisation of the working hours and, on the other that art. 8 of Legislative Decree no. 66/2003 only governs the right to a break and not also the right to canteen service, since de facto it is only possible to eat a meal during the break.

Continue reading the full version published in Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto 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

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…