The position of director of a limited company is compatible with the status of employee of the same, where it is ascertained, in practice, the performance of duties other than those of a director, which are subject to the company\u2019s hierarchical and disciplinary regime.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Court of Cassation, Taxation Section, Judgement 20 April 2021 no. 10308
\n the ruling under discussion, the Court of Cassation offers an extensive examination of the compatibility between the position of director of a company and that of employee of the same.\nIn upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Cassation preliminarily excludes the cumulative nature of the qualities of sole director and employee of the same company, \u201cnot being able, in this case, to be subject to the control and disciplinary power of others, which is a typical requirement of subordination, and for the substantially entrepreneurial nature of the managerial activity carried out by the sole director\u201d.
\nSimilarly, the existence of an employment relationship is to be excluded in the case of a sole shareholder \u201csince the concentration of the ownership of the shares in the hands of a single person excludes \u2013 despite the existence of the company as a distinct legal entity \u2013 the effective subordination of the sole shareholder to the directives of a corporate body, since the constitution and management of the employment relationship cannot be linked to a distinct \u201ccorporate body\u201c.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A different assessment is required, however, when discussing the working relationship established between a member of the board of directors of a joint-stock company and the company itself \u201csince, in such a case, the configurability of a subordinate employment relationship cannot be ruled out, when there exist the characteristics of subordination, notwithstanding the corporate office, to the directives, control and disciplinary power of the body of directors of the entity\u201c.
\nTherefore, continues the Court of Cassation, considering the abstract possibility of establishment, between the company and the individual who manages it, of an autonomous and parallel relationship that can take on the characteristics of subordinate employment, it must be ascertained in practice the assignment of duties other than those of the corporate office held and to demonstrate that the activities carried out are characterized by the typical features of subordination under Article 2094 Civil Code.
\nThe Supreme Court of Cassation reminds us that \u201cfor the purposes of qualifying as a subordinate the executive\u2019s employment relationship \u2013 when he is the holder of corporate offices (because he is in charge of the management of the entire business or a branch of it), enjoys wide margins of autonomy and the power of management of the employer is manifested not in orders and continuous controls \u2013 it is necessary to verify whether the work carried out by the same can still be classified within the specific business organization, identifying the nature of the duties performed, and whether it can be considered subject, even in a slight form to directives, orders and controls of the employer, as well as the coordination of the work according to the organizational structure of the company (Supreme Court, 1\/08\/2013, no. 18414; Supreme Court, 10\/05\/2016, no. 9463; Supreme Court, 19\/11\/2018, no. 29761)\u201c.
\nIn this case, the subordination must be confirmed by the nature of the duties (other than the functions of the office held) assigned to the same (Supreme Court, August 10, 1999, no. 8574).
\nMoreover, continues the Supreme Court, \u201cwhen the element of subordination of the employee to the directives of others is not easily identified because of the peculiarities of the duties (and their intellectual or professional nature) and the nature relationship, the distinctive parameter of subordination must be assessed or excluded by referring to the so-called complementary and secondary criteria, such as those of collaboration, of the agreed remuneration, of the coordination of the job to the organizational structure set by the employer and the absence of risk borne by the worker, elements that, without each one, can be examined globally\u201c.\nThus, in this case the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the judges of merit noting that they have clearly and correctly pointed out that, \u201cin this case, given the extent of the powers granted to the worker and the absence of controls by the governing body of the company, they cannot be considered activities of a subordinate employment relationship, resulting on the contrary the exercise by the director of the management of the company through the performance of functions that are clearly attributable to his position as a director of the company\u201d.
\nThe Court of Appeal judges, continues the Supreme Court \u201chave, in this way, excluded both the performance of duties other than those precisely pertaining to the corporate function and strong evidence of the existence of the bond of hierarchical subordination, absence of the employee being subject to the managerial, organizational, disciplinary and control of the board of directors of the company\u201d.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
La qualit\u00e0 di amministratore di una societ\u00e0 di capitali \u00e8 compatibile con la qualifica di lavoratore subordinato della stessa, ove sia accertato, in concreto, lo svolgimento di mansioni diverse da quelle proprie della carica sociale rivestita, con l\u2019assoggettamento ad effettivo potere di supremazia gerarchica e disciplinare.\u00a0 Corte di Cassazione, sezione tributaria, ordinanza 20 aprile 2021 […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1891,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[44],"tags":[92,93,50,91],"yoast_head":"\n