By way of order No. 9006 of 1 April 2019, the Court of Cassation has ruled that the minutes of a settlement agreement signed with the involvement of trade unions is actionable by the worker only in the event of vitiated consent or lack of assistance by the trade union representative. The court, on the other hand, is barred from any consideration of the parties\u2019 arrangements concerning their reciprocal concessions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The facts<\/strong><\/p>\n The case in question arises from an appeal filed by a sales agent to obtain:<\/p>\n In detail, the agent had argued, on one hand, the lack of assistance from the trade union representative in negotiating and signing the agreement, and on the other hand, that the company had exerted moral violence to force him to sign the agreement.<\/p>\n The competent court rejected the agent\u2019s appeal, maintaining that the settlement agreement was not flawed. The agent therefore lodged an appeal, which was again rejected.<\/p>\n In fact, the territorially competent Court of Appeal highlighted, among other things, that:<\/p>\n The agent therefore lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Court of Cassation ruling <\/strong><\/p>\n Citing one of its previous judgements, the Court of Cassation first affirmed that settlements and waivers affecting the rights established in mandatory rules of law<\/strong> or in collective bargaining agreements – and agreed in the minutes of settlement agreements signed with the involvement of trade unions <\/strong>– are not actionable<\/strong> by workers. This is so provided that the assistance<\/strong> given by the trade union representatives<\/strong> (assistance provided by a lawyer is not deemed equivalent) has been effective <\/strong>in terms of putting the worker in the position of knowing which right is being relinquished and to what extent.<\/p>\n The Court of Cassation also took the view that a settlement agreement should state the common will<\/strong> of the parties to amicably settle an ongoing or likely dispute (res dubia<\/em>), without any imbalance between the \u201cdatum<\/em>\u201d and the \u201cretentum<\/em>\u201d having relevance. This is so pursuant to art. 1970 of the civil code, whereby \u201cthe settlement cannot be terminated on the grounds of losses since the consideration of the reciprocal sacrifices and benefits arising from the agreement is subjective<\/strong> and therefore left to the self-determination of the parties<\/strong><\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n The Court of Cassation also observed that, in the context of the settlement, the creditor\u2019s decision to allow the debtor to defer the payment<\/strong> constituted a partial waiver<\/strong> and, therefore, a \u201cconcession<\/em>\u201d pursuant to art. 1195 of the civil code. This is because, under the civil code, an obligation to pay money, even in the context of an employment relationship, is to be satisfied by way of a single payment, since the creditor has the right to refuse a partial payment pursuant to art. 1181 of the civil code.<\/p>\n According to the Court of Cassation, it was on the basis of these principles that the trial court had rightly rejected the agent\u2019s appeal. In fact, the settlement agreement had identified the reciprocal concessions made by the parties, specifically:<\/p>\n The above on the assumption of the differing positions in terms of the respective rights and obligations.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Having not found evidence of any flaws that would result in the nullity and\/or revocability of the settlement agreement, the Court of Cassation rejected the worker\u2019s appeal and thus confirmed the legitimacy of the settlement Agreement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By way of order No. 9006 of 1 April 2019, the Court of Cassation has ruled that the minutes of a settlement agreement signed with the involvement of trade unions is actionable by the worker only in the event of vitiated consent or lack of assistance by the trade union representative. The court, on 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":[167,177,190],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-case-law","category-insights"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n\t
\n\t
\n\t