<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Civil Cassation, Section VI, Interlocutory Order, no. 14777 of May 27, 2021<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The orientation of the Supreme Court that excludes the applicability of art. 18(4) in cases where the conduct punished with cautionary measures is described in general clauses is unreasonable, in particular, where the difference between the protection of reinstatement under said art. 18(4) and damages under art. 18(5) is based on a set of facts characterized by the collective agreement as punishable with cautionary sanctions. <\/em> Irragionevole l’orientamento della Suprema Corte che esclude l’applicabilit\u00e0 dell’art. 18, comma 4, nelle ipotesi in cui la condotta punita con misure conservative sia descritta tramite clausole generali. Cassazione Civile, sezione VI, ordinanza interlocutoria, n. 14777 del 27 maggio 2021 Presenta profili di irragionevolezza l’orientamento di questa Corte, l\u00e0 dove esclude l’applicabilit\u00e0 dell’art. 18, comma 4 cit. […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1891,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[44],"tags":[56,50,83,84],"yoast_head":"\n
\nAccording to the Supreme Court \u201cthe circumstance that some conduct is not typified by collective agreements as susceptible to conservative sanctions, especially in the presence of general formulas, can not be a significant and plausible indication of the willingness of the social partners to exclude such conduct from the list of those deserving of the mildest disciplinary sanctions\u201d.
\nOn this basis, continues the Supreme Court, it does not seem reasonable to attribute, by collective agreements, the conduct punishable with conservative sanctions in the event of unfair dismissal, between reinstatement and damages.
\nThe classification of certain conduct is not conceived by the social partners in the context of the distinction between the two forms of protection: reinstatement and damages. On the basis of the judgment in question, the distinction between the two distinct remedies cannot lie in how the behaviour is classified by collective agreements and disciplinary codes. Otherwise, notes the Supreme Court, there would be an irrational disparity in treatment between less-serious behavior, classified by the collective agreement and punished with conservative penalties, and (disciplinary) facts of equal or lesser importance but not expressly covered by the contractual rules.
\nWithout considering, concludes the Court of Cassation, that if reinstatement is available only when the facts coincides with a specific conduct punishable with conservative measures, it would be easy for the employer to draw up disciplinary rules without classifying conduct punishable with conservative measures, so as to always avoid the risk of reinstatement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/em>, perch\u00e9 la tipizzazione di alcune condotte non \u00e8 concepita dalle parti sociali in vista e in funzione della distinzione che l’art. 18 pone, ai commi 4 e 5, tra le due forme di tutela.
l’utilizzo di clausole generali, anzich\u00e9 consentire l’inclusione nel campo delle sanzioni conservative di condotte aventi omologa gravit\u00e0, secondo un apprezzamento affidato al giudice e da compiere in base a criteri assiologici, diviene elemento che impedisce, ai fini della tutela, di parificare alle condotte tipizzate quelle aventi uguale o minore gravit\u00e0, ed anzi porta ad espellere queste ultime condotte dall’ambito delle ipotesi per cui \u00e8 applicabile la tutela reintegratoria<\/em>
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"