June 3, 2025
Mobbing (workplace harassment)
Awareness of job difficulty excludes mobbing and straining claims
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker sued his employer, claiming mobbing and straining due to excessive pressure and disproportionate demands that harmed his mental and physical health.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected the claim, pointing out that the worker had been aware of the job’s demands since hiring. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that harassment cannot be claimed when the worker knowingly accepted a challenging role.
According to the Court, being aware of the job’s complexity and lacking specific harassing behavior by the employer rules out mobbing or straining. A systematic, persecutory intent is required for such claims, which was not present in this case.
April 18, 2025
Self-employment and subordinate work
Riders and intermittent work: the Ministry outlines classification criteria
Ministry of Labour
Circular No. 9/2025 from the Ministry of Labour provides initial guidance on how to classify the employment relationships of platform-based delivery riders. The key point is a reference to intermittent (on-call) work as a possible interpretative framework.
Like on-call jobs, platform-based work can be fragmented and flexible. Therefore, the circular advises not to rely solely on the contract’s formal label, but to consider the actual working conditions.
It also refers to EU Directive 2024/2831, which requires member states to introduce a rebuttable presumption of employee status to combat false self-employment. Pending formal adoption, the Ministry encourages a substantive approach that focuses on the reality of the work rather than formal titles.
The goal is to prevent disguised dependency and ensure that workers receive the minimum protections associated with subordinate employment.
April 2, 2025
Dismissal for just cause
Too many coffee breaks: dismissal is valid even without a posted disciplinary code
Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section
A sanitation worker was dismissed after an investigation revealed he frequently took long coffee breaks during work hours, confirmed by GPS tracking on his assigned vehicles.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The worker argued that the disciplinary code had not been posted as required, but the Court noted that posting is not necessary when the behavior violates laws or fundamental worker duties, or general social norms that are widely understood.
Especially when the conduct may constitute a criminal offense or violates ethical standards universally recognized, the worker cannot claim ignorance. In such cases, the employer is not required to post a disciplinary code to justify sanctions.
