In recent years, terms such as smart working, agile working or workation have become firmly established in the working lexicon. These new ways of working bring with them opportunities and competitiveness, but also new responsibilities and risks, especially in terms of health and safety.
The concept of a “workplace” is no longer only linked to a physical company space. It can be one’s own home, a second home, a library or a coworking space. However, the dematerialisation of work space raises questions: how should security be managed?
Agile work, regulated by Law No. 81/2017, requires the worker to cooperate in the implementation of preventive measures prepared by the employer. The legislator, in fact, has not provided for a transfer of the burden of prevention and self-protection onto the worker.
The phenomenon of workation – from the combination of “work” and “vacation” – is perhaps the most significant representation. More and more people are choosing to work from holiday locations and more and more companies are granting it. The objective? To combine productivity and well-being. But in these cases the risks can be even more complex: inadequate facilities, unstable connections, ergonomically incorrect workstations, social isolation, confusion between working time and leisure time.
The employer always remains at the centre as the main person responsible for the health and safety of company staff. Prevention and Protection Services and Workers’ Safety Representatives must adapt their activities to a (physically) distributed work population, using digital tools to monitor risks and involve workers.
Continue reading the full version published on Itali Oggi.
Managing employee surveillance is a sensitive issue, especially with the rise of new technologies. Recent rulings from Italy’s Court of Cassation have clarified the legal boundaries surrounding this practice.
The role of Investigative Agencies
Employers may use private investigators to check potential employee misconduct, such as unapproved absences or misuse of leave. However, these investigations must be focused, proportional, and lawful, ensuring they do not interfere with an employee’s work duties.
Monitoring company devices
Employers may need to access employees’ devices, such as emails or laptops, especially when there is reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The Italian Supreme Court has recently clarified that checking an employee’s email is only permitted when there is concrete suspicion, and such checks must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Balancing business needs and employee privacy
It is essential to strike a balance between business needs and employee privacy. Surveillance must be justified, proportionate, and never indiscriminate. Employers must ensure they follow legal guidelines to avoid misuse of the information collected.
Best practices
By following these principles, employers can protect their business interests while respecting employee privacy.
Continue reading the full version published on Agenda Digitale.
Exceeding the sick leave period represents a delicate balance between employee rights and business needs. Over the years, case law has provided important guidance on the matter. What checks must the employer carry out, and what are the employee’s responsibilities?
The issue of exceeding the sick leave period is a key aspect of human resource management. On the one hand, employees suffering from serious or prolonged illnesses need sufficient time off to recover without losing their job. On the other hand, businesses must ensure operational continuity and may struggle to manage prolonged absences.
Managing the exceeding of the sick leave period requires a balanced and careful approach. Employers must verify compliance with contractual regulations and act in good faith, avoiding hasty or discriminatory measures.
Employees, in turn, have a duty to properly communicate their condition and comply with the rules set by their contract and the law. Over time, case law has provided essential guidance to balance these interests. However, only a case-by-case assessment can ensure the right equilibrium between employee protection and business needs.
The accrual period is mainly regulated by Article 2110 of the Civil Code, which states that in the event of illness, the employee has the right to keep his job for a period determined by collective agreements. Once this limit has been exceeded, the employer may terminate the relationship, subject to the right to compensation for notice.
Moreover, Law 300/1970 (Workers’ Statute) in Article 18 goes into the merits of the termination of employment: the rule protects the worker from dismissals announced in violation of Article 2110, second paragraph, of the Civil Code, providing the right to reinstatement in the workplace.
Over the years, several Supreme Court rulings have made headlines regarding the exceeding of the sick leave period and have clarified that the employer must consider the specific situation of the employee and evaluate possible alternatives before proceeding with dismissal.
In addition to the case that gained media attention of an employee dismissed when only a few days remained before the end of the sick leave period (Supreme Court Ruling No. 24766/2017), here are some rulings that have made history:
To avoid legal disputes, the employer must carry out careful checks before taking disciplinary measures. In particular, they must:
Continue reading the full version published on HR Link.
As recent news events have shown, even the fashion sector has not been spared the growing attention of the authorities (labour, tax and criminal) towards the world of service contracts.
The particular interest in such cases is rooted in the frequent use by Italian companies of third-party service providers that, in fact, with a not inconsiderable frequency do not meet the legal requirements to constitute so-called ‘genuine contracts’.
The issue is of some importance in view of the reference sanctions system, recently tightened by the legislator.
In fact, Decree-Law No. 19 of 2 March 2024 on ‘Further Urgent Provisions for the Implementation of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR)’ has provided that, in the event that the existence of a non-genuine contract or fraudulent supply of labour is ascertained, the user of the staff is subject to certain financial penalties (up to a maximum of € 100.00 for each worker employed, for each day of work) and to imprisonment for up to 3 months.
In addition to these consequences, there are also others of a strictly labour law nature (i.e., the establishment of a subordinate employment relationship directly with the user of the work service, who will also be liable for any wages and contributions not paid to the staff) or fiscal consequences (e.g., the offence of issuing invoices for non-existent transactions may be charged).
Continue reading the full version published on The Platform.
In its ruling no. 2058 of January 29, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of a just cause dismissal for an employee who had publicly defamed her superiors via social media.
This case concerns an employee who was dismissed for just cause after posting defamatory statements on Facebook and sending a series of e-mails containing derogatory remarks about her superiors and the company.
Following the appeal, where the employee argued that her statements were simply an exercise of her freedom of speech and had not caused any real damage to the company’s reputation, both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. They concluded that the employee’s behavior had irreparably damaged the trust necessary for the employer-employee relationship.
The Court of Appeal specifically found that the employee’s actions «went beyond the formal boundaries of the right to criticize» thus justifying the dismissal for just cause.
Additionally, when evaluating the legitimacy of the dismissal, the Court of Appeal stated that «the e-mails sent from the company’s account and the posts on Facebook, marked by bitterness and acrimony and filled with vulgar and offensive language, clearly showed an intent to personally and professionally offend and humiliate her superiors, undermining any legitimate claim of protecting the company’s interests». The Second – Instance Court further highlighted that the employee’s conduct was not an expression of her right to criticize, but rather an attempt to harm the company’s reputation by mocking its leadership and suggesting unfounded corruption allegations.
The employee challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision by appealing to the Italian Supreme Court, raising several grounds for the appeal.
The Italian Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, ruling that defamatory conduct on social media can indeed constitute just cause for dismissal, as it undermines the trust relationship between the employee and employer. The Court affirmed that the «expressions made by the employee went beyond the limits of acceptable criticism, making the defense of free speech inapplicable», and also stated that «whether the posts concerned the company itself is irrelevant, as they targeted the hierarchical superiors and clearly had disciplinary significance, especially when, as in this case, they exceeded the limits of formal propriety».
Finally, the Supreme Court emphasized that violations of the duties of loyalty and fairness – particularly when expressed publicly and on social media – can lead to a breakdown in the trust relationship, thus justifying the dismissal.
Other related insights:
