On the causes legitimating the dismissal the Supreme court continues to split. The last judgment, in the order of time, 25201, December 7 last year, widens the scope of the layoff to objective justified reason. According to this ruling of the Employment section does not need to be economic hardship or crisis, but it is sufficient will on the part of the employer to increase the profits. The verdict refers to a judgment of the Court of Appeal in Florence, 29 may 2015, reversing the judgment of first instance, has considered unlawful in the dismissal of an employee in the resort luxury for objective justified reason. The Supreme court has confirmed the first judgment of the legitimacy of the dismissal. A signal anything positive for the workers. But the association of labour lawyers consulted by he helped.en remember that a few years ago, the Supreme Court alternates sentences that combine two different strands: the first, in the majority, which configures the dismissal as a last resort, the other more liberalizzante according to which it is not necessary to an unfavourable economic climate because the employer can dismiss. "The judgment of 7 December last, explains to he helped.en Vincenzo Martino, vice-president of the Lawyers Italian association of labour lawyers (Reuters) – the bride in this tradition: it is not the first that follows this address, but it is also true that on the face of layoffs we can expect future pronouncements contrast with this latest verdict, which reflects a general climate unfavourable for the workers". According to Umberto Romagnoli, professor emeritus of labour Law at the University of Bologna, it is good to emphasize that "it remains the majority the interpretation according to which the dismissal is the extreme ratio", but that "at some point the Supreme court will have to resolve the question of orientation different than you came to create".
The last judgment: no judgment of merit on the decisions of the company – The judgment 25201, therefore, is not an absolute novelty. "But as this is not a verdict that is issued to joined sections – explains Martino – and there are signs that are discordant in the various pronouncements that have occurred over the last few days, I’d say that the game is still open, even if it is not a step towards the workers". In the judgment there is reference to some standards. With the reference to thearticle 41 of the Constitution, the stoats reaffirm the principle "that the entrepreneurial that has resulted in the suppression of the place of work non-criticized in its profiles of appropriateness and opportunities" with the limits prescribed by the same article and "always that is the effectivity and not speciousness rehabilitation the organizational work". For Martino, the novelty lies, rather, in the arguments and in the use of a rule so far neglected and now enhanced, namely article 30, paragraph 1, of law 183 of 2010 (Related work), according to which "in all cases in which the provisions of the law in matters of private business and the public contain general terms and conditions, including the rules regarding (…) withdrawal, the judicial control is limited only in accordance with the general principles of the legal order, the assessment of the assumption of the legitimacy and not extended the union of merit on technical evaluation, organization and production that are the responsibility of the employer". Which translated means: my company, I organize how I want. "Music to the ears of entrepreneurs," explains Martino.
On the other hand, an account is put on the table the numbers of a company in crisis or in economic difficulty, another is to demonstrate that a dismissal may benefit the accounts. But there is the risk that, following this address, anyone who can dismiss without limits? A reflection legitimate after the substantial liberalisation of dismissals unjustified brought by the Jobs Act, with the elimination of the right to the elasticity in the place of work. For Romagnoli, "it is not true that anyone can fire anyone, because the same Supreme court stresses the need to ensure certain requirements".
"If you take the foot, this leaves the employer the dishonest will be favourites," – the employment lawyers ‘ stress as well as the same instruction provides the tools to protect workers – by providing that the employer can prove that the suppression of the place of work is necessary and is not instrumental or built in the art – it is also true that they both admit how easy it is, for an employer little honest who wants to dismiss, demonstrate that this will increase the profit of his company. "Could do so while remaining within the law, ” explains Martino – the moment you accept the assumption that the dismissal is not the most extreme ratio, but a free choice of the entrepreneurial sole in court". You can entrust the same tasks that were previously performed by the dismissed employee is a new hire, "nor can you hire an employee that performs the same functions, but 'it costs less', but the organization and division of work with other colleagues stayed in the staff can offer several trick to work around the obstacle. For Romagnoli although it is still an orientation minority compared to the one that limits the power of the company, made possible thanks to a law general, "the rise of this genre that puts the business centre compared to workers, so how did the Jobs Act, runs the risk of facilitating the'increase in cases to the limit and provide tools to employers dishonest."