{"id":25304,"date":"2024-01-30T15:20:27","date_gmt":"2024-01-30T14:20:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/lavoro-agile-e-lavoratori-fragili-le-attivita-da-remoto-devono-essere-compatibili-con-le-esigenze-organizzative-e-produttive-dellazienda-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-08T11:42:44","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T09:42:44","slug":"lavoro-agile-e-lavoratori-fragili-le-attivita-da-remoto-devono-essere-compatibili-con-le-esigenze-organizzative-e-produttive-dellazienda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/remote-working-and-vulnerable-workers-remote-work-must-be-compatible-with-companys-organisational-and-production-needs\/","title":{"rendered":"Remote working and vulnerable workers: remote work must be compatible with company\u2019s organisational and production needs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Court of Trieste, Employment Section, with order of 21 December 2023, no. 525\/2023 has held that so-called \u201cvulnerable\u201d workers\u2019 rights to work remotely cannot be \u201cabsolute\u201d but must be balanced with the company\u2019s organisational and production needs as envisaged by the employer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the present case, a \u201cvulnerable\u201d employee worked remotely five days a week, under an individual fixed-term agreement. At the end of the agreed term, the employer informed the employee that, due to changed business and organisational needs, she would have to work for three days a week in person and, for the remaining two days, remotely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the face of this, the worker complained about the incompatibility of her state of health with in-person work, arguing the the tasks assigned to her were absolutely compatible with remote working – also taking into account that in the last three years she had carried them out entirely remotely – and highlighting the unlawfulness of the employer\u2019s conduct for breach of Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The employer challenged the application and claimed that it was unfounded for alleged breach of the company\u2019s freedom of organisation, protected by Article 41 of the Italian Constitution. The employer justified the refusal to allow the employee to work entirely remotely on the basis of proven organisational reasons and reiterated the need for her presence in the workplace for at least three days a week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court highlighted that the right to remote working granted to \u201cvulnerable\u201d workers (see Article 90, paragraph 1, of Italian Decree-Law no. 34\/2020) is not an absolute right but a right expressly subordinated to the compatibility of the worker\u2019s tasks being carried out remotely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also acknowledged that the ways in which the employer exercised its power to organise the company appeared real and appropriate and that the possibility of working remotely, albeit partially, was never denied but rather partially granted following a balancing and re-evaluation of the parties\u2019 mutual needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25ca\u25ca\u25ca\u25ca<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, it can be said that the assessment of the compatibility of remote working by vulnerable workers must be carried out on the basis of the organisational and production needs of the concerned organisation, involving, where necessary, an inevitable need to alternate between days in which the worker must work in-person and days when he\/she can work remotely. This reading, among others, is consistent with the provisions of Article 18 of Italian Law no. 81\/2017 which, in defining remote working, provides for that work should be provided \u201cpartly inside company premises and partly outside<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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