Case Law

The Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 24259 of October 28, stated that the outsourcing of the most qualified activities of a service, in case of employee’s refusal to be seconded to the external company or to perform a different task corresponding to his/her job position, is able to legitimize the dismissal if alternative positions suitable for him/her in the same company do not exist.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 20913 of September 12, 2013, stated that technical, organizational and productive reasons justifying the transfer of the employee must be described in detail and must not be generic.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 21922 of September 25, 2013, rejected the appeal of a company against the decision of the Court of Appeal which stated that employee’s behavior who claimed her new duties must be assigned in writing is lawful.

Court of cassation, with sentence of September 30, 2013, no. 22321, stated that the ten-year blameless behavior and the will of refunding the damage caused to the employer save the employee who pockets the reimbursement of a trip never done from the dismissal.

Court of Cassation, with the sentence no. 17204/2013, stated that the employer is exempted from the obligation to obtain the consent of the employee in order to carry out preliminary investigation aimed at exercise his/her right.