May 16, 2025
Equal opportunities – Discrimination
Full protection granted to de facto partner in a family business
Supreme Court, Labor Section
The case arose from the request of a woman who, after years of cohabitation and continuous work in her partner’s (non-marital) agricultural business, asked the court to recognize her participation in the family enterprise and to liquidate her due share. The Court of Appeal had rejected the claim, denying her rights to profit participation and the application of additional protections under Article 230-bis of the Civil Code to an unmarried cohabiting partner.
However, during the same period, the Constitutional Court declared the legislation unconstitutional insofar as it failed to protect stable cohabitants who provide continuous labor to the business, thereby violating principles of substantive equality, the right to work, and fair remuneration.
Adopting this position, the Supreme Court sided with the former cohabiting worker, affirming that a genuine and consistent contribution to a business must be recognized and protected, even in the absence of marriage. The judges emphasized the importance of the substance of family relationships over their formal classification.
May 13, 2025
Severance pay, notice, and other termination indemnities
Monthly TFR advances considered wages by the Supreme Court if conditions are not met
Supreme Court, Labor Section
An employee had received monthly payments over a long period as advances on severance pay (TFR), without any specific justification and in the absence of the legal requirements. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court, which emphasized the strict conditions required for lawful early payment of TFR.
According to the Court, for the advance to be legitimate, specific conditions must be met: a clearly defined reason, its exceptional (one-time) nature, and respect for quantitative limits. If TFR is paid periodically and automatically without meeting these requirements, the amounts are considered wages in every respect, triggering the employer’s contribution obligations.
This ruling reinforces a restrictive interpretation of TFR advances, confirming that any deviation from the ordinary rules must be explicitly justified and limited. Employers must therefore carefully assess how they manage such advances to avoid tax and contribution liabilities.
May 22, 2024
Compensation and benefits
Stock grants are considered compensation if provided for in the contract: the court orders return of shares
Verona Tribunal
A former executive sued his former employer, seeking the return of 395 shares that had been unlawfully removed from his U.S. brokerage account. These shares, granted by the foreign parent company under a multi-year incentive plan, were — according to the claimant — part of his contractual compensation.
The defendant company did not appear in court and provided no justification for the removal of the shares, which had been carried out by the parent company.
The Tribunal fully upheld the claim, holding that the shares were indeed part of the employee’s remuneration, as indicated in the employment contract, treated as taxable income, and recorded on the payslips.
The court acknowledged the presence of a delegated payment arrangement, since the parent company had fulfilled the employer’s compensation obligation. It ordered the employer to procure and credit the 395 shares to the indicated account and fulfill the related tax obligations. The ruling is significant regarding deferred compensation and third-party incentive plans.
