With judgment no. 4087 of 4 November 2025, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation – Labour Section – confirmed the legitimacy of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an employee who had misappropriated company products, focusing in particular on the principle of promptness in disciplinary charges.
In the case examined, an employee working at a pharmacy had been dismissed for having taken, between December 2014 and February 2015, products intended for sale, resulting in a shortage of significant economic value. The employer proceeded to issue the disciplinary charge in March 2015, once the internal administrative and accounting checks necessary to reconstruct the extent and systematic nature of the conduct had been completed.
The employee challenged the dismissal, alleging a breach of the principle of promptness in the disciplinary charge. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, however, found the dismissal to be lawful, emphasizing the seriousness of the established conduct and its suitability to irreversibly undermine the relationship of trust. The courts of merits also ruled out any lateness in the disciplinary charge, considering the time elapsed to be justified by the complexity of the investigations carried out and by the seriousness of the conduct established.
The Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the employee’s appeal, reiterating that the principle of promptness in disciplinary charges is not absolute, but must be assessed in light of the circumstances of the specific case. In particular, the time required by the employer to acquire full and reliable knowledge of the facts may justify a postponement of the charge, without this, in itself, rendering the dismissal unlawful.
In conclusion, the ruling confirms that the misappropriation of company products constitutes a serious breach of the duties of fairness and loyalty and may justify dismissal for just cause, even where the disciplinary charge is brought some time after the conduct, provided that the delay is justified by the manner in which the facts were ascertained.
Summary
1. Regulatory framework of the employee’s right to criticize
Regulatory Framework
The employee’s right to criticize constitutes a specific expression of the freedom of thought guaranteed by Article 21 of the Italian Constitution, as an aspect of the individual’s moral personality that is exercised even within the employment relationship. This right also finds its foundation in Article 2 of the Constitution, which protects human dignity and the inviolable rights of the person in social relations. From a supranational perspective, it is further supported by Articles 10 of the ECHR (which reaffirms that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression”) and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, both of which establish freedom of expression as an essential element of democratic citizenship.
However, in line with the relative and balanced nature of fundamental rights, the employee’s right to criticize is subject to limitations arising from the need to reconcile it with other constitutionally protected values. On the one hand, this includes the protection of a person’s honor, reputation, and dignity (Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution). On the other hand, it encompasses the freedom of private economic initiative (Article 41 of the Constitution), which cannot be undermined by forms of expression that damage the company’s image or operational efficiency.
Continue reading the full version published on Il Modulo 24 Contenzioso Lavoro.
In judgment no. 28365 of 27 October 2025, the Court of Cassation, Labour Section, upheld the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal imposed on an employee for the unlawful use of company IT tools. The Supreme Court confirmed the full legitimacy of the employer’s monitoring, as it was carried out in compliance with company policies properly communicated to employees.
The case originated from the summary dismissal imposed in 2021 by the company on an employee responsible for commercial management activities.
The disciplinary measure was based on findings, following IT audits, of repeated unauthorized access to company systems and the transmission to external parties of a large number of files containing clients’ sensitive data.
The employee challenged the dismissal, disputing the legitimacy of the monitoring and claiming that the company laptop subject to the checks was his personal property at the time the data were extracted, and that the inspection activities were in violation of privacy laws and Article 4 of the Workers’ Statute.
The Court of Appeal of Campobasso rejected the appeal, considering the dismissal fully legitimate. The company had demonstrated that the computer was still company property at the time of the checks and that the monitoring had been carried out in compliance with the internal policy, previously communicated to employees, which clearly outlined the purposes, methods, and limits of IT monitoring, as well as the possibility of using the collected data for disciplinary purposes in case of violations.
Read the full version published on Norme & Tributi Plus Diritto de Il Sole 24 ore.
By order no. 24922 of 9 September 2025, the Italian Court of Cassation once again addressed the sensitive issue of the abuse of parental leave, as provided for by Article 32 of Legislative Decree no. 151/2001, confirming the legitimacy of dismissal for just cause imposed on an employee who had used such leave for purposes other than caring for his child.
The case originated from the disciplinary dismissal imposed by a company on one of its employees for having abused parental leave. The Court of Appeal of Reggio Calabria (second instance), overturning the first instance decision, upheld the lawfulness of the employer’s termination, having found that the employee, during the period of absence from work, had engaged in work activities at the seaside resort managed by his wife, thereby neglecting the direct care of his children and, in particular, of the child under three years of age. Such conduct, according to the Court of Appeal, distorted the very purpose of the measure, even making it necessary to resort to external assistance to compensate for his absence, in clear contrast with the aim of parental leave, which is to foster the parent–child relationship.
The employee had argued that abuse of rights could only be established in the event of continuous and predominant activity, whereas his presence at the seaside resort for work purposes had been sporadic and of short duration. The Court of Cassation once again rejected this argument, clarifying that even an occasional use of parental leave for purposes unrelated to child care constitutes an abuse of rights.
The Supreme Court further stressed that parental leave must comply with the principles of fairness and contractual good faith. Improper use of the measure causes harm both to the employer, who is unjustly deprived of the employee’s performance, and to the social security institution, which pays an allowance disconnected from its intended purpose.
In conclusion, the order confirms a principle already well-established in Italian case law: when the causal link between absence from work and the care of the child is lacking, parental leave is improperly used. Such abuse irreversibly undermines the fiduciary relationship with the employer and may justify dismissal for just cause.
In the absence of proof of the employer’s intention to terminate, a claim of ineffectiveness of an oral dismissal must be rejected
The Court of Catania, in its recent judgment no. 2385 of 5 June 2025, reiterated that a claim challenging a dismissal, where the ineffectiveness of the measure is alleged on the grounds that it was communicated orally, places on the employee—pursuant to the general principles set out in Article 2697 of the Italian Civil Code—the burden of proving the constitutive fact of the claim, namely that the termination of the employment relationship is attributable to the employer’s intention to remove the worker.
This ruling aligns with a now well-established line of case law, reaffirming with clarity the governing principles and offering a rigorous application of evidentiary rules.
As is well known, individual dismissal is a unilateral and receptive act subject to a mandatory form requirement: under penalty of ineffectiveness, it must be communicated in writing.
This fundamental principle is unequivocally set out in Article 2 of Law No. 604 of 15 July 1966, which states that “the employer, whether or not an entrepreneur, must notify the employee of the dismissal in writing.”
Written form is required ad substantiam, meaning as an essential requirement for the validity of the termination itself. Its absence results in the most severe legal consequence: the ineffectiveness of the dismissal, as expressly provided for in the third paragraph of the same article.
This means that a dismissal communicated only verbally is considered tamquam non esset—as if it had never occurred—and is therefore entirely incapable of producing the terminating effect on the employment relationship.
The rationale underlying this mandatory rule lies in the need to ensure certainty in legal relationships, to enable the employee to mount a full and informed defense through judicial challenge, and to guarantee that the employer’s decision to terminate is formalized in a clear and permanent manner.
While the substantive legal provision is clear, its practical application raises a crucial procedural issue when the employee turns to the court claiming to have been excluded from the workplace following nothing more than an oral communication.
In this scenario, resolution of the dispute shifts to the evidentiary level, governed by the general rule set out in Article 2697 of the Italian Civil Code, according to which “the party who wishes to assert a right in court must prove the facts on which the claim is based.”
Continue reading the full version published on Il Modulo 24 Contenzioso Lavoro.
