The\nCourt of Appeal, by ruling 26029 dated 15 October 2019, reconfirmed that the\ndismissal of a compulsorily employed employee must be considered voidable in\nthe context of a collective staff reduction procedure if, at the time of the\ntermination of the employment contract, the number of remaining compulsorily\nemployed employees is less than the special reserve and clarified that the\nconsequences of the aforementioned voidability of the dismissal must be\nattributed to those actionable in the case of unlawful dismissal due to\nascertained breach of the selection criteria. The case on which the Supreme\nCourt was called upon to decide refers to an employee hired under the mandatory\nplacement regulations, dismissed in the context of a collective procedure. The\nregional courts, called in the first and second instance to decide on the\nemployee’s request aimed at obtaining a declaration of unlawfulness of the\ndismissal with all legal consequences, had accepted the request, sentencing the\ncompany to reinstate said employee in the workplace and to pay compensation\nequal to 12 monthly salaries of the final overall de facto remuneration. The\nRome Court of Appeal had specifically confirmed the first instance decision\nbased on the assumption that it was undisputed that he was a mandatorily hired\nemployee, on the circumstance to be considered amicable under internal ruling,\ngiven that the employee had not provided evidence to the contrary, that, at the\ntime of the termination of the employment contract the number of mandatorily\nemployed employees was less than the special reserve. The company filed an\nappeal against the ruling of the Court of Rome, supported by a single ground.\nThe employer claimed that it had not selected the disabled individual to\ndismiss him, but having applied a clause of the union agreement that provided\nfor the outsourcing of the department in which he worked and having, in any\ncase, offered the employee a relocation within the same production site and to\nthe same tasks that he previously carried out, employed by the department\u2019s\ncontracting company, an offer that he had rejected. The Court of Appeal, in\nrejecting the employer\u2019s ground of appeal, echoing the text of Article 10,\nparagraph 4, of Law 68 of 1999, according to which the dismissal referred to in\nArticle 4, paragraph 9 of Law number 223 dated 23 July 1991, namely, dismissal\nto reduce the workforce or to for justified objective reason, exercised against\nthe mandatorily hired employee, is voidable if, at the time of termination of\nthe employment contract, the number of remaining mandatorily hired employees is\nless than the special reserve provided for by Article 3 of this law, specified\nas follows.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Court of Appeal, by ruling 26029 dated 15 October 2019, reconfirmed that the dismissal of a compulsorily employed employee must be considered voidable in the context of a collective staff reduction procedure if, at the time of the termination of the employment contract, the number of remaining compulsorily employed employees is less than the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[177,190,208],"tags":[530,941],"class_list":{"0":"post-21479","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"hentry","6":"category-insights","8":"category-publications","9":"tag-dismissal","10":"tag-licenziamento-en"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n