{"id":25490,"date":"2024-10-29T10:00:20","date_gmt":"2024-10-29T09:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/did-you-know-thatthe-dismissal-of-an-executive-after-a-probationary-period-of-a-few-weeks-has-been-declared-lawful\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T18:20:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T16:20:26","slug":"did-you-know-thatthe-dismissal-of-an-executive-after-a-probationary-period-of-a-few-weeks-has-been-declared-lawful","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/do-you-know-that-en\/did-you-know-thatthe-dismissal-of-an-executive-after-a-probationary-period-of-a-few-weeks-has-been-declared-lawful\/","title":{"rendered":"DID YOU KNOW THAT\u2026The dismissal of an executive after a probationary period of a few weeks has been declared lawful?\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the absence of a provision on the minimum duration of the contractual probationary period, the employer is entitled to dismiss an executive for failing to pass the probationary period even after only a few weeks, despite the fact that the parties had agreed on a duration of six months. This principle was established by the labor judge of the Court of Arezzo in his ruling of 7 October 2024.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the present case, an executive had been hired with an open-ended contract in order to manage a business area, with a probationary period of six months. However, after only seven weeks of work, the company dismissed him, claiming a lack of consistency between the manager\u2019s professional qualities and the specific business needs.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The executive challenged the lawfulness of the dismissal, arguing that the short duration of the probationary period was not sufficient for a proper evaluation of his skills. He also pointed out that, considering the time that had passed, it was not possible to make a full analysis of his abilities and of his potential contribution to the company. On the other hand, the company justified its decision by referring to the disagreements it had had with the sales manager and the manager\u2019s commercial approach, which was considered to be \u201cnot very effective\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judge found the company\u2019s decision reasonable, stating that the time elapsed was sufficient to assess the manager\u2019s professional qualities. Furthermore, the judge ruled that it was up to the executive to prove that the few weeks of work were not sufficient to consider the probationary period completed, stating that the burden of proving the inadequacy of the duration was on the employee.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision under review highlights how the short duration of the probationary period does not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for challenging the lawfulness of the dismissal. Indeed, the employee must provide concrete evidence in support of his position, and the mere duration of the probationary period is not sufficient to prove the groundlessness of the dismissal.\u202f <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u202f Other related insights:\u202f <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n