Supreme court: firing for profit you can – CataniaLiveNews

the fact Remains that if the company is very easy to prove that the dismissal increases the efficiency of the company (just a statement of the persons responsible), show the opposite is what is called the “probatio diabolic”, that is, a proof impossible to provide, without doing work, the person in question. It says to Labitalia Luca Failla, a lawyer, and giuslavorista, co-founder of LabLaw, the first Italian firm for professionals and widespread diffusion on the territory, specialized in labour law and labour relations. This is the new and revolutionary types of dismissal recognized for the first time in our legal system, by a recent judgment of the Court of cassation (judgment no. 25201 December 7, 2016).

The dismissal for profit.

.

The decision of Supreme court, seems to be based article 41 of our constitution, which protects the principle according to which the entrepreneur should be free to adopt all the decisions that are conducive to his activities, comply with, however, within the limits of the law.

“In other words -continues – with this sentence the judges of the Supreme court have said, for the first time in a clear way and unambiguous that a dismissal will not be justified only for reasons of corporate crisis or declining sales, or, in more serious cases, in which at stake is the survival of the company itself, but also (this is what is new historical for a better and more efficient production organisation of the company and to the search for greater productivity and profitability, then to generate the most profit.” It has been decided by the Labour Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation.

it is legitimate for the dismissal of an employee motivated by the company with the intent of creating “a more cost-effective for a increase in profit.” Up to this moment, in fact, if this is the case, it rested above all on the possibility to dismiss the employee because of the economic crisis of the company.

“With the second reason -clarifies – complaint is still a violation and false application of articles 3 and 5 of law 15 July 1966, no. 604, in respect of 41 the Constitution”. A court, in short, can not intervene in the autonomy of the entrepreneur to lay off even if you’re not facing an “economic and financial crisis” that compels him to reduce costs. On appeal, the judges had said to the contrary, claiming that for the company it was only a matter of increasing profits and this was not a good reason for a dismissal.