{"id":25451,"date":"2024-10-02T07:07:05","date_gmt":"2024-10-02T05:07:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/cassazione-lrls-ha-un-diritto-di-critica-e-di-manifestazione-del-pensiero-piu-ampi-di-un-dipendente-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-02T15:48:51","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T13:48:51","slug":"cassazione-lrls-ha-un-diritto-di-critica-e-di-manifestazione-del-pensiero-piu-ampi-di-un-dipendente","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/pubblicazioni\/supreme-court-the-workers-safety-representative-ie-rappresentante-dei-lavoratori-per-la-sicurezza-or-rls-has-a-wider-right-to-criticize-and-express-opinions-than-an-employee\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court: the workers\u2019 safety representative (i.e. \u201cRappresentante dei lavoratori per la sicurezza\u201d or \u201cRLS\u201d) has a wider right to criticize and express opinions than an employee"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With Order No. 23850\/2024, published on 5 September 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that employees who also act as workers\u2019 safety representatives (\u201cRLS<\/em><\/strong>\u201d) are entitled to the same protection as trade unionists. This means that \u201cRLSs\u201d can use harsher tones than those \u201cnormally allowed<\/em>\u201d for an employee, because they stand on an equal footing with the employer. There are, of course, limits to this in terms of respect for fairness and human dignity, which, when crossed by derogatory and unproven statements, justify the employer’s disciplinary action. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An employer sanctioned an employee, in charge of employee safety, with a ten-day suspension from work because his statements, which appeared on an online information portal and in a local newspaper, concerning data on accidents to travelers due to door defects and fatal accidents at work, exceeded the limits of the right to criticism and moderation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, the employee had expressed solidarity declarations regarding the non-reinstatement of a group of workers, describing that conduct as an \u00abanti-democratic and anti-union shortcut<\/em>\u00bb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The employee contested the disciplinary sanction, which was confirmed at first instance and overturned on appeal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The decision of the Supreme Court<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court confirmed the appellate court\u2019s decision, concluding that even harsh criticism of the employer\u2019s activities, when expressed by a person who represents the collective interests of the workers against those of the employer, such as the \u201cRLS<\/em>\u201d in this case, cannot be the subject of disciplinary sanctions. The ruling states that \u201cby including the role of the RLS in the area of protected subjects, such as trade union members representing collective interests, the expression of solidarity with other workers with a general trade union political value is part of the constitutionally protected right of criticism and the right to express ideas<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All this, of course, should always be done within the limits of formal correctness and the protection of the human person, so much that \u201conly when these limits are exceeded by the attribution to the employer company or its managers of openly dishonorable qualities and unproven disparaging references, can the employee’s conduct be legitimately sanctioned by disciplinary measures<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n


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