{"id":24410,"date":"2020-07-27T14:42:27","date_gmt":"2020-07-27T12:42:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/within-the-scope-of-private-law-agreements-the-principle-of-ensuring-equality-of-pay-and-or-of-classification-to-all-employees-fulfilling-the-same-duties-does-not-exist\/"},"modified":"2026-04-02T17:11:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T15:11:57","slug":"within-the-scope-of-private-law-agreements-the-principle-of-ensuring-equality-of-pay-and-or-of-classification-to-all-employees-fulfilling-the-same-duties-does-not-exist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/case-law-en\/within-the-scope-of-private-law-agreements-the-principle-of-ensuring-equality-of-pay-and-or-of-classification-to-all-employees-fulfilling-the-same-duties-does-not-exist\/","title":{"rendered":"Within the scope of private-law agreements, the principle of ensuring equality of pay and\/or of classification to all employees fulfilling the same duties does not exist"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With judgment dated 17 July 2020, the Court of Florence has ruled that \u201carticle 36 of the Constitution limits itself to establish the principle of sufficiency and adequacy of the pay, regardless of any intersubjective comparison and that article 3 of the Constitution imposes the equality of citizens vis-\u00e0-vis the law and not also in any relations between private persons<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts of the case<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Some temporary workers seized the Court of first instance against the agency and the client company. In her own claim, one of the claimants \u2013 in the case at issue, a female employee hired by the agency under a fixed-term employment agreement \u2013 claimed, amongst others, to have worked for the agency\u2019s client from 22 June 2015 until the following 30 September, being classified as follows: level VI of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for Armed Private Security Services (hereinafter, the \u201cCCNL<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), with a full-time timetable and vault clerical duties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having stated the above, the claimant inferred her right to be classified at level IV of the CCNL instead of at level VI formally assigned to her, thus requesting the agency\u2019s client be ordered, jointly and severally with the agency, to pay the relevant differences in the pay, as per the calculations attached to the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The agency and its client appeared before the court with standalone statements of defence, by challenging the claimants\u2019 claims and by requesting that the latter be rejected, since groundless; by being awarded the costs for the legal proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In particular, the agency claimed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n