In judgment no. 28367 of 27 October 2025, the Court of Cassation – Labour Section – upheld the legitimacy of the summary dismissal imposed on an employee who, outside working hours, had engaged in sporting activities that were inconsistent with the medical prescriptions limiting his physical fitness for the performance of certain duties.
In the case at hand, a production-line worker had been declared fit for work with restrictions by the occupational physician, who had prohibited him from handling loads exceeding 18 kg and from lifting items above shoulder height due to a spinal condition. The employer, however, discovered that the employee routinely worked as a personal trainer at a gym in his free time, performing weightlifting exercises that were incompatible with the imposed restrictions. Evidence of such conduct also came from videos posted by the employee himself on his social media profiles.
Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal of Rome upheld the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal, finding that the conduct in question was capable of undermining the relationship of trust and amounted to a breach of the employee’s duties of loyalty, fairness and good faith. The Court of Appeal, in particular, emphasised that the evidence of the facts did not derive from the investigative activities ordered by the employer, but from the employee’s own conduct during the proceedings—he had never disputed the factual circumstances alleged—and from the content he himself had shared online.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the employee’s appeal in its entirety, confirming the soundness of the reasoning adopted by the lower courts. First, it reiterated that the obligations of an employee do not end with the performance of work duties, but extend to ancillary duties of fairness and good faith, which complement and broaden the duty of loyalty owed to the employer. These obligations also apply to off-duty conduct when such conduct may potentially harm the employer’s interests or undermine the trust required for the continuation of the employment relationship.
Second, the Supreme Court clarified that, for just cause to be established, actual harm is not required; it is sufficient for the conduct to be potentially detrimental. In the case at hand, the employee’s systematic engagement in sporting activities that contravened medical prescriptions was deemed incompatible with the restrictions imposed to protect his health, exposing the employer to the risk of an aggravation of the condition and further sickness absences.
In conclusion, the ruling reaffirms that the employee’s duty of loyalty includes the obligation to maintain behaviour consistent with their physical condition and with the employer’s organisational needs, even outside working hours. Engaging in sporting activities that may be harmful to one’s health, in violation of medical prescriptions known to the employer, constitutes a serious breach of trust and may justify summary 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.
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.