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

20 May 2026

Webinar “May 1st Decree: Key Updates and what’s New” –  HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

On the occasion of our webinar “An HR Coffee with De Luca Partners,” the speakers Silvia Zulato, Senior Associate, and Alessandro Riccardo Polli from the Labour Consulting Division…

12 May 2026

Legitimate dismissal for false attendance reporting and misuse of access system data (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 7985 of 31 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section – confirmed the lawfulness of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an…

30 Apr 2026

Webinar “Bonuses: What Do You Need to Know About Objectives?” – HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

Yesterday, during our first webinar “HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners", the speakers Vittorio De Luca, Managing Partner, and Alessandra Zilla, Managing Associate at De Luca &…

27 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the Italian Data Protection Authority extends the right of access to all emails in the individual email account 

“An employee may access the messages in their corporate email account and the documents stored on their computer after the termination of employment. Any limitations must be justified by specific…

27 Apr 2026

Unemployment benefits and resignation following transfer beyond 50 km: distance alone is not sufficient, employer’s breach must be proven  

With order no. 10559 of 21 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of unemployment benefits (i.e. “NASpI”) in the context of resignations for just cause following…

27 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… the probationary period clause is null and void if the duties are described in generic terms? 

The Court of Milan, with judgment no. 683 of 3 April 2026, reaffirmed that a probationary clause (i.e. “patto di prova”) is valid only if it contains a specific indication of the duties subject to…