Managers Are Not Automatically Exempt from Working Time Limits

In Ordinance No. 9081 of April 6, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) reaffirmed a key principle concerning working time regulations: holding the title of “Manager” (Quadro) does not automatically exempt an employee from the working time limitations set out in Legislative Decree 66/2003. To qualify for such an exemption, the employee must hold a genuinely directive role or possess actual autonomous decision-making powers.

The Case: Extended Lunch Breaks and Reduced Working Hours

The case arose from a dismissal for just cause of an employee classified as a “Professional Manager, Level 2,” who had repeatedly reduced his physical presence at work. Specifically, between January and mid-February 2020, on 26 workdays, he took lunch breaks lasting around two hours (instead of the prescribed 60 minutes) and left work early, all without authorization.

The Court of Appeal of Naples upheld the lower court’s decision, confirming the factual basis of the allegations and pointing out the absence of justification and the worker’s conscious violation of a contractual working schedule regulated by the collective agreement.

No Automatic Exemption for Managers

In his first appeal, the employee argued that he was not subject to strict working hours, invoking Article 17 of Legislative Decree 66/2003, which provides exceptions for “executives, managerial staff, or individuals with autonomous decision-making authority.”

The Supreme Court clarified that such exemptions do not apply automatically to all Managers (Quadri). To benefit from the exclusion from working hour limits, one must demonstrate a real directive function or autonomy in decision-making. In this case, the employee did not manage company departments nor hold any representative or deputy roles. Moreover, the applicable collective agreement explicitly required managers to follow a daily work schedule from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Repeated and Willful Conduct Justifies Dismissal

The second ground for appeal challenged the classification of the employee’s actions as grounds for dismissal, asserting that they only warranted a conservative sanction under the collective agreement. However, the Court upheld the lower court’s view that the misconduct was systematic, repeated, and deliberate. The situation was further aggravated by a prior verbal warning issued in December 2019.

According to the judges, the employee’s behavior seriously damaged the trust underpinning the employment relationship, thereby justifying dismissal. The ruling also reaffirmed that, in cases of dismissal for just cause, the collective agreement does not bind the court’s evaluation of the severity of the conduct, unless it explicitly prescribes a lesser disciplinary action.

Practical Role, Not Job Title, Determines Exemption

The Supreme Court emphasized that what matters is the employee’s actual role and responsibilities within the organization, not merely their formal job title. The exemption provided by Article 17 of Legislative Decree 66/2003 applies only to roles characterized by genuine autonomy and responsibility, allowing the worker to self-manage their working hours. This was clearly not the case here.