Government and unions tried to invalidate the unfair dismissal in the negotiation of the labor reform

The unions have recently raised verbally at the labor reform table that in case of unfair dismissal corresponds to the worker and not the employer decide whether to continue working in the company, as explained to eE a business source familiar with the negotiation who does not reveal which of the two unions the initiative came from. This same source indicates that the union initiative had the endorsement of the Ministry of Labor.

The proposal supposes a 180 degree turn from the current model that, once the judge has declared an unfair dismissal, delegates to the employer the choice between terminating the contract of the previously dismissed employee or paying him a compensation of 33 days per year worked up to a maximum of 24 monthss. Another source, also from the business environment, points out that it would also have proposed to return to the compensation prior to the labor reform of 45 days per year worked with a maximum of 42 monthly payments.

However, these sources clarify that the proposal was never debated and that it would have been a proposal of maximums, frequent at the table, rather than a real attempt to reform the unfair dismissal. In this sense, union sources consulted by eE declare that “That has not been in the debate and we have not raised it because the dismissal is not on the table.”

Business concern

The business sources consulted show, however, their concern about a measure that would represent a red line in the negotiation that is in its final phase and should conclude before December 31.

The actual article 56 of the ET establishes that “when the dismissal is declared inadmissible, the employer, within five days from the notification of the sentence, may choose between the reinstatement of the worker or the payment of compensation equivalent to thirty-three days of salary per year of service”.

Legal sources indicate that technically the change proposed by the unions is possible, simply by changing “employer” to “worker”. And they point out that in Italy the choice corresponds to the worker on some occasions.

This is explained in a report made for UGT by Maria Emilia Casas, former president of the Constitutional Court and one of the most prestigious labor lawyers, and that has been used on other occasions during the debates of the labor reform table. Compare temporary hiring and firing costs in various European countries.

In Italy, If the judge considers the “controversial fact” or that the “punishable conduct” does not justify the dismissal, it condemns the employer to “reinstate the worker to his position and pay compensation.” In the rest of the cases, the employer will limit itself to indemnify.

Void dismissal

Regarding dismissals, the Government has only proposed the reform of article 55 (disciplinary dismissal) to include as a new cause for null and void dismissal that of a worker who, having been hired temporarily, the causes put forward so that instead of indefinite he was hired by determined duration do not conform to law.