Le Centre d’étude de De Luca & Partners gère et coordonne les activités de recherche, de formation (interne et externe) et les activités éditoriales en matière de droit du travail, de protection des données personnelles et de responsabilité administrative des personnes morales.
De Luca & Partners investit en effet dans l’étude et la diffusion de sujets relevant de sa compétence et collabore à ce titre avec le journal italien Sole 24 Ore et avec les principales revues et publications spécialisées.
With its ruling no. 70 of 30 April 2015, the Constitutional Court declared article 24, paragraph 25 of Italian Legislative Decree 201/2011 (so-called Manovra Salva-Italia), converted by Italian Law no. 214/2011 illegitimate, specifically the part which had frozen revaluation of pensions of amounts greater than 1,700 euro gross for the 2012-2013 two year period.
The Milan Court, Labour Section, with ordinance no. 11340 of 15 April 2015, specified that a generic disciplinary dispute prevents the identification of the act which is the basis for the dismissal.
The Ministry of Labour, with reply to a question of 24 April, clarified that the new social insurance for employment (Naspi) will apply to all cases of involuntary unemployment, including cases of (i) dismissals for just cause, (ii) consensual termination at the time of preventive arbitration before the local employment offices (DTL) and (iii) disciplinary dismissal.
L’avocat Alberto De Luca a participé, en tant qu’orateur, au congrès « Les décrets d’application du Jobs Act – La révision des types de contrats et de la discipline des droits » – Ambasciatori Palace, Rome, 17 avril 2015.
The conduct of a female worker who gave work files vulgar names is not just cause for dismissal. The Cassation Court established this with ruling no. 5878/15, confirming that the conduct of the worker, despite being censurable in terms of correctness, could not be considered serious enough to irreparably damage the relationship of mutual trust, because it did not constitute a clear and repeated disregard for the company's honour and image.
The decree no. 23/2015 omitted regulating dismissal for exceeding the protection period. Therefore, for new hirings, the unlawfulness of this type of dismissal is considered as unjustified dismissals, with consequent granting of two months pay for each year of job seniority with a minimum of 4 and maximum of 24 months pay (in small companies the worker can ask for halved increasing protection, with a minimum of 2 and maximum of 6 months pay).
The Milan Court, Labour Section, with its ruling of 29 January 2015, established that an employer who intends to dismiss more than five workers for objective reasons in one hundred and twenty days and at more than one shop, must apply the layoff procedure where the single shops (even if located in different provinces) do not constitute autonomous production units from a technical and organisational standpoint.
The definition of “definitive closure” of a business needs to be clarified. For the overhaul of social shock absorbers in terms of employment, as required by the Jobs Act, the desire of the legislator is to limit the application framework of these instruments, as well as to rid them of the primarily welfare connotation they ....
