Dignity Decree Sets Standards for Fixed-Term Agreements

New Order or Decree

Author: Carlo Majer, Partner – Littler, Italy

On July 3, 2018, Italy approved the “Dignity Decree,” which, among other things, permits fixed-term employment agreements to be made, without specifying the reasons, for a maximum period of 12 months and can be extended 4 times. Should it extend further, the motivation must be expressed in the agreement. Permissible reasons for extensions include (i) temporary and objective reasons, relating to extraordinary needs, and (ii) temporary, significant and unforeseeable increases of the ordinary business. Under no circumstances shall the agreement exceed two years. The Decree also modifies the provision on temporary work.

Dignity Decree on Temporary Work

New Order or Decree

Author: Carlo Majer, Partner – Littler, Italy

The Dignity Decree (approved by the Government on July 3, 2018), modifies the law on temporary work. Under the Decree, if a fixed-term agreement occurs between the employee and the staff agency, the provisions regarding the duration (i.e., 12 months for an agreement without reasons and 24 months) and the maximum number of extensions (i.e., four) apply.

Offensive Facebook Comments Found to Be Legitimate Grounds for Dismissal

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Carlo Majer, Partner – Littler, Italy

A recent Supreme Court decision held that posting critical and offensive comments on Facebook is a lawful ground for dismissing an employee. The Court rejected the employee’s contention that the post could only be seen by her Facebook “friends,” finding the conduct to constitute unlawful defamation. The decision conflicts with precedent, as the Court previously declared that sending complaints about an employee’s superiors via email was not a lawful ground for dismissal.

Delivery Men Considered Self-Employed

Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency

Author: Carlo Majer, Partner – Littler, Italy

On May 7, 2018, the Court of Turin held that the delivery men working in the “gig economy” are considered self-employed. The Court emphasized that delivery men exercise dominion in deciding whether their services are available. This control over working hours was a key factor in deciding their status, as delivery men do not have any organizational power or discipline exercised on them. Consequently, delivery men cannot be considered subordinates of those that utilize their services.