{"id":25686,"date":"2025-12-24T09:28:00","date_gmt":"2025-12-24T08:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/remote-monitoring-and-dismissal\/"},"modified":"2026-04-02T16:11:30","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T14:11:30","slug":"remote-monitoring-and-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/news\/remote-monitoring-and-dismissal\/","title":{"rendered":"Remote monitoring and dismissal: what the Italian Supreme Court\u00a0established\u00a0in judgment no. 30822\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cThe images collected through audiovisual systems may be used for disciplinary purposes only if all the conditions laid down by Article 4 of the Italian Workers\u2019 Statute are met and provided that neither <\/em>the law nor collective bargaining agreements limit such use<\/em><\/strong>; where a collective agreement provides for a clause on inadmissibility, that restriction remains fully effective even after the 2015 reform of the relevant provisions<\/em>.\u201d This was held by the Italian Supreme Court in judgment no. 30822 of November 24, 2025, which addresses the relationship between video surveillance, disciplinary powers, and collective bargaining. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The case arose from the dismissal of an employee working as a croupier, who was accused by the employer of having appropriated cash during chip-changing operations. The evidence relied upon by the company consisted of video footage recorded by cameras installed above the gaming tables, authorised several years earlier by the Labour Inspectorate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the first-instance court upheld the validity of the employer\u2019s termination decision, the Court of Appeal declared the footage inadmissible and the dismissal unlawful, relying on a clause contained in the administrative authorisation – expressly incorporated into the collective agreement – which provided that the footage could not be used to support disciplinary charges against croupiers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that the administrative authorisation had been obtained before the 2015 reform, the company appealed, arguing that the Jobs Act, by amending Article 4(3) of the Workers\u2019 Statute, introduced the rule that images may be used \u201cfor all purposes connected with the employment relationship\u201d, including disciplinary purposes, provided that the employee has been informed and data protection rules are complied with. According to this interpretation, the restrictive clause in the authorisation – and mirrored in the collective agreement – should be considered superseded by the new wording of Article 4 of the Workers\u2019 Statute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

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

The Italian Supreme Court rejected the employer\u2019s interpretation, recalling that Article 4 of the Workers\u2019 Statute distinguishes between two categories of tools: tools that are potentially suitable for remote monitoring of employees\u2019 activity, which require a trade union agreement or an authorisation from the Labour Inspectorate; and work tools, for which no such prior procedure is necessary. In the case at hand, the Court confirmed that the cameras could be regarded as \u201cwork tools\u201d: their use was reserved exclusively to the control room and did not serve croupiers in performing their duties. On this basis, the Court found that Article 4 (1) and all related constraints were fully applicable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regard to the use of images for disciplinary purposes, the Court acknowledged that, following the 2015 reform, Article 4 (3) expressly allows such use, thereby overcoming the traditional distinction between defensive monitoring and monitoring of work performance. However, the Court emphasised that this rule applies only where no other sources \u2013 such as collective agreements \u2013 restrict the use of such data. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In earlier decisions, the Italian Supreme Court had already clarified that restrictive clauses contained in pre-reform administrative authorisations would not survive where incompatible with the new statutory framework. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case, however, the restriction was not confined to the authorisation: it had been expressly incorporated by the social partners into the collective agreement, through a specific clause reproducing the prohibition on using images for disciplinary purposes, even in the presence of conduct detrimental to the company\u2019s assets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn this perspective, the inadmissibility of the information gathered through video cameras represents an expression of the free exercise of collective autonomy, which is undoubtedly worthy of protection, and in this case operates as a more favourable clause for the employee<\/em>\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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