With judgment no. 29341 of November 6, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court, Labor Division, confirmed the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal imposed on an employee who refused to report for work at her new place of assignment, reiterating that an employee’s refusal to perform their duties – even when the transfer is disputed. must comply with the principles of fairness and good faith set out in Article 1460, paragraph 2, of the Italian Civil Code.
In the case at hand, the employee, who had been transferred following the closure of her original workplace, was absent from work for several days, refusing to report to the new location and justifying her absence by claiming family difficulties and the alleged unlawfulness of the transfer. The company, deeming her conduct unjustified, imposed disciplinary dismissal.
The Court of Appeal of Rome, confirming the first-instance decision, considered the dismissal lawful. It found that the organizational needs underlying the transfer were documented and uncontested, as the employer no longer had any operational site in the employee’s previous city. The employee, although claiming that she was materially unable to relocate due to family issues, had never provided concrete details regarding such impediments.
The Italian Supreme Court, dismissing the employee’s appeal, reiterated that the unlawfulness of an employer’s decision does not automatically justify the employee’s refusal to perform their work duties, unless such refusal is necessary to avoid serious and immediate harm to the employee’s fundamental rights. Good faith must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the seriousness of the employer’s breach, the employee’s personal and family circumstances, and the impact of the refusal on the company’s organization.
In this case, the Court upheld the assessment of the lower courts. A refusal is justifiable only when there is serious and immediate prejudice to the worker’s fundamental rights, to be evaluated according to the principles of proportionality and good faith.
In the absence of such conditions, as in the present case,the employee’s conduct constitutes a disciplinary breach and justifies dismissal.
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.
The Spanish Data Protection Authority (i.e. “AEPD”) initiated sanction proceedings against a Spanish company belonging to an international group, following a complaint filed by a former employee.
The employee alleged that the company had added her personal mobile phone number to a corporate WhatsApp group, without her consent, for work-related purposes while waiting to receive a company phone – which she never actually received. Before taking a holiday, the employee had expressly notified the company by email that she would stop using her private number for work matters and had left the corporate WhatsApp group. However, only a few days later, her number was added again to a company group chat. The company argued that the inclusion was temporary, pending delivery of the business phone, and that WhatsApp groups were used solely for internal work communications among employees.
The AEPD, however, found that the use of the employee’s personal number without consent violated Article 6, paragraph 1, of the GDPR, which requires a lawful basis for any processing of personal data.
The Spanish Authority recalled that a personal mobile phone number is a personal data item, and that its use to include an employee in a corporate messaging group constitutes data processing which must rely on one of the legal bases set out in Article 6, paragraph 1, of the GDPR.
In the case under review, there was no consent from the data subject, nor any contractual necessity or other legitimate ground for processing. Moreover, the Spanish Authority stated that the existence of an internal company policy on the use of mobile devices does not exempt the employer from the obligation to establish a proper legal basis for processing.
The company was therefore fined €70,000, reduced to €42,000 after it acknowledged the violation and opted to pay the reduced amount. The AEPD also ordered the company to adopt corrective measures to ensure future compliance with the GDPR.
BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies are corporate rules governing the use of personal devices – such as smartphones, laptops, or tablets – for work-related purposes.
In practice, a BYOD policy sets out how employees may use their personal devices to access corporate data, emails, or applications, and defines the relevant security measures.
It is always preferable for companies to provide corporate devices and maintain a clear separation between personal and business tools. However, if the employer decides to allow employees to use personal devices for business purposes, a documented internal policy should be adopted, regulating:
Other related insights:
With Order No. 27253 of October 12, 2025, the Italian Court of Cassation (Labour Section) reaffirmed that the remuneration to be paid to employees during their holiday period must be equivalent to that received during ordinary working periods. In other words, the employer must also include allowances related to the duties performed if these constitute a stable and continuous component of remuneration.
The case concerned an employee of a well-known Italian railway company who worked as a train manager. During his holidays, the company had excluded from his payslip several items such as the on-board allowance, the out-of-district service allowance, the efficiency allowance, and commissions. The employee therefore claimed payment of the pay differences, arguing that these sums formed an integral part of his normal remuneration and should therefore have been duly paid during holidays.
The Court of Appeal of Milan upheld the employee’s claims, recognising that these allowances were closely linked to the duties performed and that their exclusion resulted in an unjustified reduction of salary during holidays—one that could discourage the employee from fully enjoying his rest period. According to the appellate judges, excluding such items led to an unjustified reduction of pay during the holiday period, in breach of the European principle of pay equivalence and potentially capable of deterring employees from exercising their right to annual leave.
The Court of Cassation confirmed this decision, referring to EU Directive 2003/88/EC and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which establish that the right to paid annual leave is a fundamental principle of European social law. Therefore, during the rest period, the employee must receive “ordinary” pay, including all elements that are stably connected to the performance of work.
The Supreme Court also clarified that a reduced salary during holidays may constitute an “economic deterrent”, inducing employees to forgo their right to rest. For this reason, any pay component reflecting the usual conditions of work—such as mobility allowances, commissions, or compensation for specific inconveniences—must also be included during the holiday period.
With judgment no. 26956 of October 7, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court – Labor Division – confirmed the legitimacy of an employee’s dismissal for exceeding the statutory sick leave period (i.e. “periodo di comport”, the maximum period of protected absence due to illness), reiterating that it is not sufficient for the worker to suffer from a serious illness; the condition must also be formally communicated to the employer through appropriate medical certification.
In the case at hand, the employee had been dismissed for exceeding the limit of 245 days of absence provided by Article 63 of the Italian National Collective Bargaining Agreement (i.e. “CCNL”) for the Logistics, Freight Transport and Shipping sector. The worker challenged the dismissal before the Court of First Instance, arguing that his absences – due to a condition requiring dialysis treatment – should be excluded from the calculation, as they fell within the scope of “particularly serious illnesses” referred to in paragraph 8 of the same article.
The lower court upheld the employee’s claim. However, the Court of Appeal of Ancona, overturning the first-instance decision, held that the contractual clause in Article 63, paragraph. 8, of the NCBA Logistics must be interpreted restrictively, limiting its application only to cases of illnesses requiring formally certified life-saving therapies.
The Italian Supreme Court confirmed this approach, clarifying that the exclusion of absences from the sick leave period constitutes an exception to the general rule and therefore requires strict compliance with the employee’s duty to provide formal notification.
In this case, although the employee had informally informed his supervisor of his medical condition via WhatsApp messages, the medical certificates submitted to the company did not include the box ticked for “serious illness requiring life-saving treatment.” According to the Court, this omission prevented the application of the favorable clause provided under the NCBA.
The Supreme Court further clarified that dialysis therapy indeed qualifies, in abstract terms, as a life-saving treatment. However, the decisive factor was the employee’s failure to fulfill the formal communication requirement. In line with the principles of legal certainty and the formal nature of acts affecting the employment relationship, informal communications – even if timely – cannot serve as proof or substitute for the required medical-legal documentation.
In conclusion, mere employer awareness of the employee’s illness, acquired through informal channels, is not sufficient to justify the exclusion of absences from the sick leave period unless accompanied by explicit and properly issued medical certification in accordance with the applicable procedures.
Other related Insights:
