Notification of illness to the employer may be validly effected by fax if that method is expressly provided for in the company\u2019s rules. In such circumstances, the fax is deemed to have been correctly received by the employer if the employee can prove, by means of transmission reports, that the notification was successful, even if there is no record on the company\u2019s servers. The employee\u2019s conduct in notifying the employer of his illness from abroad, although potentially negligent, will not constitute a valid reason for dismissal unless it can be shown that the employee was aware of the failure of the transmission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case examined by the Supreme Court concerns a dismissal for just cause due to \u201cunjustified absence of more than four days\u201d against an employee who became ill while he was on vacation in Romania. The employee argued that his absence was justified, stating that he had contracted the illness during his vacation and, therefore, had sent the medical certificate by fax, in accordance with the company\u2019s rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the dismissal, the employee challenged the measure before the Court of First Instance of Treviso, (Italy) requesting the repeal of the dismissal due to the non-existence of the alleged infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main argument in the company\u2019s defense consisted in the alleged inadequacy of the illness notification. Specifically, the company claimed that the employee did not respect the procedures set out in the company\u2019s rules, which, according to the company, required both a more \u201cformal\u201d notification, typically through registered mail, and a telephone call notice. The employee, however, disagreed, stating that sending a fax was an acceptable method according to the rules, and that the certificate had been transmitted correctly, as evidenced by the transmission report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the preliminary hearing, the Court of First Instance of Treviso upheld the employee\u2019s appeal, declaring the dismissal null and void and ordering his reinstatement. Additionally, it ordered the company to pay an equal compensation \u00abto the employee for the period from the date of dismissal until his actual reinstatement, based on his gross salary<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Against the Court of First Instance\u2019s decision, the Company brought the case before the Court of Appeal of Venice. The latter partially upheld the appeal, confirming the unlawfulness of the dismissal and the employee\u2019s reinstatement, re-determining the compensation to twelve months\u2019 salary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court stated that Article 40 of the applicable national collective bargaining agreement provides for unjustified absence of four days or more as grounds for disciplinary dismissal, including in the definition of unjustified absence also late communication and late sending of the medical certificate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, according to the company\u2019s rules, it was the employee\u2019s precise duty to notify the employer on the day of the event, in addition to sending the medical certificate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, it turned out that the employee had not documented any impediment justifying the failure to notify; in fact, the only text message sent was dated days after the beginning of the disputed absence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A final significant aspect examined by the Court of Appeal concerned the employee\u2019s failure to allege a possible impediment to telephone communication. On this point, the Court of Appeal noted that \u00abthe employee has not demonstrated an impediment of such gravity as to radically exclude the possibility of a prior serious attempt to contact the company director<\/em>\u00bb. Finally, it stated that \u00abthe employee has behaved in a formally obsequious manner in relation to contractual obligations, but he has only minimally fulfilled them<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consequently, the Court found that the employee had failed to comply with the obligation to notify the employer by telephone, in breach of the company\u2019s rules and of the duty of care required in the context of a subordinate employment relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The company appealed to the Supreme Court on five grounds against the decision of the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first ground of appeal was based on the alleged nullity of the judgment on the ground that the Court of Appeal had made contradictory and irreconcilable statements. In particular, the judges of the appeal had \u00abfirst affirmed that the employee\u2019s conduct was neither linear nor based on the essential rules of diligence required by the employment relationship\u00bb <\/em>and then \u00ab excluded the existence of a just cause that allowed the dismissal<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court of Cassation rejected the aforementioned argument, stating that the contradiction was only apparent, as the Court of Appeal had considered sufficient both the method of transmission by fax, as provided for in the company\u2019s rules, and the proof of its receipt in the transmission report submitted by the employee at the trial, since a similar fax had been sent to the INPS and duly received by it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its second plea, the company challenged the Supreme Court for finding that fax transmission was \u201cappropriate\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/dimissioni-shutterstock_1182037858-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nThe facts of the case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The various degrees of judgement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n