INPS,\nwith message no. 3359 of 17 September 2019, summarised and explained to the\neconomic operators and their area offices, the principles established at the\nSupreme Court level regarding the compatibility between the ownership of\ncorporate offices and\/or the figure of the shareholder of corporations with a\nclear employment relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nmessage is based on what has already been stated on the subject by the\nInstitute itself in Circular Note 179 of 8 August 1989 (“Investigations and evaluation of the\nexistence of the subordinate employment relationship<\/em>“), partly revised\nin light of message 12441 of 8 June 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nSocial Security Institute, starting from the assumption that the position of\ndirector of a joint-stock company does not exclude a priori the configurability\nof a subordinate employment relationship provided its relative characteristics\nexist (i.e. the subjection to the authority of management, control and\ndisciplinary management body), resides in the various corporate positions\nhighlighting, for each of them, the limits to the compatibility with a parallel\nemployment relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Corporate positions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n First\nof all, the position of Chairman of the Board of Directors<\/strong> is examined,\nwhich, in the Institute’s opinion, is not incompatible with the status of<\/em> a subordinate worker, without\nprejudice to the submission of the Chairman to the directives, decisions and\ncontrol of the Board, even in the presence of the possible conferral of legal\nrepresentation of the company. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As\nabove, unlike the sole director <\/strong>since “he\/she<\/em> has the power to express on his own the will\nof the corporate body, as well as the powers of control, command and discipline<\/em>“.\nThe position of sole director is, in fact, incompatible with an employment\nrelationship because the employee would end up performing work ordered by the\ngoverning body, i.e. by himself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ncompatibility between the office of Managing Director<\/strong> and a parallel\nemployment relationship must be assessed, according to the Supreme Court and\nthe Institute, on the basis of (i) the extent of the delegation conferred by\nthe Board of Directors, (ii) the number of any other managing directors and\n(iii) the ability to act jointly or severally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nview of this and without prejudice to the existence of the typical elements of\nsubordination, the Institute \u2013 on the basis of the judgements examined \u2013\nconsiders that the figure of the managing director to whom specific and limited\npowers are conferred and who acts in the presence of other delegated bodies is\nnot an obstacle to the establishment of a genuine employment relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On\nthe other hand, it is not possible for the sole\nshareholder<\/strong> of a limited company to have an employment relationship, since\nthe concentration of ownership of the shares by a single person in essence\nexcludes his actual subjection to the directives of a corporate body, thus\nbecoming the “sovereign” of the company itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ncase of the partner (not single)<\/strong> of a limited company, on the other\nhand, is different. In fact, even in the presence of a simultaneous position as\ndirector, it is not abstractly possible for this figure to set up an autonomous\nsubordinate employment relationship, subject to the concrete verification of\nthe performance of activities outside the functions inherent in the working\nrelationship, distinguished in any case by the typical characteristics of\nsubordination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Proof of the\ncumulative nature of corporate office and employment relationship<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly,\nthe Institute focuses its analysis on the evidence that must be provided in\ncourt by the subject who wants to enforce the bond of subordination in the\npresence of a relationship of a purely managerial type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Starting\nfrom the decisions of the Supreme Court, the INPS specifies that the cumulation\nof corporate office and employment relationship requires proof of the following\nconditions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, INPS\nspecifies certain distinctive elements of subordination will be evaluated\nlater, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In essence, with the\nexception of the sole shareholder of a corporation, the Institute allows the\ncumulation of the office of director and that of subordinate worker provided\nthat concrete and rigorous proof is provided of the performance of activities\noutside the functions inherent in the staff relationship and characterized by\nthe typical characteristics of subordination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" INPS, with message no. 3359 of 17 September 2019, summarised and explained to the economic operators and their area offices, the principles established at the Supreme Court level regarding the compatibility between the ownership of corporate offices and\/or the figure of the shareholder of corporations with a clear employment relationship. The message is based on […]<\/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":[177,190,203],"tags":[965],"class_list":{"0":"post-24238","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"hentry","6":"category-insights","8":"category-practice","9":"tag-inps-en"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n