The request to postpone the oral hearing, filed by the employee under disciplinary process, can be refused by the company when the employee does not prove the impossibility to leave home. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Case ref: Cassazione Civile, sez. lav., 17 gennaio 2020, n. 980<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court of Cassation, with judgement no.980 filed on 17 January 2020, clarified that the medical certificate sent by the employee in the context of a disciplinary process against him, is not in itself enough to obtain a postponement of the disciplinary hearing in which to present his oral defenses. \nIn the case in question, the employee filed a court claim before the Court of Cassation claiming, amongst other things, the violation of his right to a defense, since the employer had refused the request to postpone (once again) the oral hearing, applying the disciplinary sanction without hearing his defenses. La richiesta di differimento dell’audizione orale, formulata dal lavoratore sottoposto a procedimento disciplinare, pu\u00f2 essere rifiutata dal datore se il dipendente non prova l’impossibilit\u00e0 di allontanarsi da casa. Cassazione Civile, sez. lav., 17 gennaio 2020, n. 980 Con la sentenza n. 980 del 17 gennaio 2020, la Corte di Cassazione chiarisce che l\u2019invio da parte […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1891,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[44],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\nThe Court of Cassation rejected his claim stating that \u201cthe employee\u2019s illness, medically certified, does not itself justify the impossibility to attend the oral hearing. Instead, the employee must prove that the illness prevents him from leaving home (or hospital), so that the postponement of his oral hearing represents a real defensive need, not otherwise achievable\u201d.
\nThe Judges in this case found that the employee had not in fact proven that the illness prevented him from leaving home (or hospital), thus justifying the employer\u2019s refusal to postpone the hearing.
\nFurthermore, the Court held that the company had acted in compliance with the employee\u2019s right to a defense, since the company \u201cscheduled the oral hearing as requested by the employee, postponed it the first time upon employee\u2019s request based on his illness, alerted the employee that the disciplinary process had to be terminated at the postponed date, in compliance with the NCBA provisions, inviting him to notify in writing any additional justifications, that he did not sent\u201d.
\nIn light of the above, the Supreme Court stated that \u201cthe company\u2019s correctness and good faith could not be denied\u201d.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"