{"id":24650,"date":"2021-09-01T08:12:56","date_gmt":"2021-09-01T06:12:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/legitimate-dismissal-for-refusal-to-return-to-company-after-illness\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T17:50:41","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T15:50:41","slug":"legitimate-dismissal-for-refusal-to-return-to-company-after-illness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/case-law-en\/legitimate-dismissal-for-refusal-to-return-to-company-after-illness\/","title":{"rendered":"Legitimate dismissal for refusal to return to company after illness"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Court of Cassation, with its ruling no. 22819\/2021, considered legitimate the dismissal of a worker who refused to return to the company, at the employer\u2019s request, because the preventive suitability medical examination referred to in Article 41, paragraph 2, letter e-ter), of Legislative Decree 9 April 2008, no. 81 (Consolidated Law on health and safety at work) was not carried out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

After 12 months of sick leave following a prolonged period of illness, a railway operator worker was asked to return to the company’s offices to undergo a medical examination which would have taken place within a few days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The worker refused to comply with the employer’s request to visit the company and the employer, after having notified her unjustified absence from work, at the end of the disciplinary procedure, dismissed her for justified subjective reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal of Rome rejected the complaint lodged by the worker against the judgement of the Court of Rome, which rejected the objection lodged by the worker against the order, under art. 1, paragraph 51, Law 92\/2012, which rejected the application for a declaration of nullity or unlawfulness of the dismissal with notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The worker appealed to the Court of Cassation against the Court of Appeal\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 41, paragraph 2, letter e-ter) of the Consolidated Law on safety at work<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Article 41, paragraph 2, letter e-ter of the Consolidated Law on health and safety at work requires that health monitoring includes “medical examinations before the resumption of work, following an absence for health reasons lasting more than 60 continuous days, to verify work suitability.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal found that the preventive medical examination in question constituted a check that the Law did not consider as a legal condition for resuming work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the preventive medical examination referred to in Art. 41 of the Consolidated Law was not a condition for resuming work, according to the Court of Appeal, the refusal to continue work constituted an unjustified absence, to which dismissal with notice was legitimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Cassation held that the preventive medical examination referred to in Art<\/strong>. 41 of the Consolidated Law<\/strong> aims to verify the suitability for the tasks and restore to general work and not a specific task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court, in previous similar cases of termination for just cause, stated “the rule should be read – according to an interpretation consistent with its literal wording and purpose – in the sense that the \u201cresumption of work<\/strong>\u201d against which the medical examination must be \u201cprior\u201d, is the practical assignment of the worker to the same tasks previously carried out, when they return to the company after an absence for health reasons lasting more than 60 days, <\/strong>since these are theonly tasks for which it is necessary to carry out a check of “suitability” i.e. ascertain whether the worker can carry them out without prejudice or risk to their psycho-physical integrity.”<\/em> “The worker, if once again assigned to the same tasks assigned before the start of the absence period, may refrain from carrying out the same tasks, under Art. 1460 of the Civil Code, given that the medical examination provided for by the rule is part of the fundamental entrepreneurial obligation to prepare and implement the measures necessary to protect the worker\u2019s safety and health” <\/em><\/strong>(Court of Cassation ruling no. 7566\/2020). Consequently, “their omission may constitute a serious breach by the employer which, if appropriate, legitimises the exception of breach by the worker under art. 1460 of the Civil Code”<\/em> ( Court of Cassation – Joint Chambers ruling 22 May 2018, no. 12568).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Cassation pointed out that the case in which the worker refuses to return to the company must be kept separate from this hypothesis<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Cassation noted that, once the reason justifying the absence ceases to exist (in this case the worker exceeded her required leave of absence), the worker cannot be allowed to refrain from going to work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court emphasised that such a request <\/strong>is to be considered “a moment distinct from the assignment of duties, since it is intended to make the relationship operative again and the employer may arrange a different placement <\/strong>of their employee within the company organisation, <\/strong>as part of their powers, even if provisionally and pending the completion of the medical examination and the related suitability check<\/strong>“<\/em> (see Court of Cassation ruling no. 7566<\/a>\/2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the above, the Court of Cassation held that the worker’s refusal to return to the company was unjustified and confirmed the legitimacy of the disciplinary dismissal with notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other related insights:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n