SERVICES
Remuneration and Benefits
The “super‑minimum” cannot be touched when changing levels
Supreme Court (Cassation)
A female worker, upon promotion to a higher contractual level under the collective agreement, had her previously granted “super‑minimum” allowance reduced, with the employer claiming it was “absorbed” by the new, higher contractual minimum wage.
After conflicting rulings in lower courts, the Court of Cassation clarified when individual super‑minimum can actually be absorbed. The Supreme Court held that absorption is permissible only when the collective agreement provides an increase in the minimum wage—not simply due to a level progression that raises the table wage but reflects different duties.
This decision confirms that an individually negotiated super‑minimum—a salary component granted for specific reasons—cannot be automatically absorbed following a promotion. This principle protects individual agreements that exceed the contractual minimum, ensuring economic continuity even when duties are reorganized.
Just‑cause dismissal
The new disciplinary code is not retroactive: legal certainty must prevail
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker was dismissed for insulting and threatening a team leader. He appealed to the Cassation invoking a new collective bargaining clause—adopted after the incidents—which prescribed a lesser, non‑dismissal sanction for the same behavior and declared itself retroactive.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, ruling that new disciplinary rules cannot apply retroactively. A generic retroactive clause in the collective contract isn’t enough: disciplinary provisions must comply with legal certainty, meaning the rules must have been known at the time of the conduct.
According to Cassation, reinstatement protection applies only if the employer knowingly abuses its disciplinary power or if dismissal is manifestly illegitimate under the rules in force at the time of the misconduct.
Dismissal for exceeding medical leave limit
Dismissal for exceeding permissible medical absence valid even during Covid‑19 lockdown
Supreme Court, Labour Section
A worker was dismissed for exceeding the “comporto” (maximum allowable illness absence) due to a new medical incapacity. The case fell during the Covid‑19 dismissal ban, and the worker challenged it as illegitimate.
The Court of Cassation upheld the dismissal, noting that the pandemic-era ban did not apply to dismissals due to exceeding comporto or new incapacities. These cases were not covered by the general suspension because they involve individual circumstances—not economic or organizational reasons.
This decision offers important clarity to employers, pinpointing the boundary between prohibited dismissals and those allowed even during emergency lockdowns.