Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The Court of Cassation, with Ordinance No. 7848 of March 25, 2025, has once again weighed in on a delicate issue: the legitimacy of disciplinary dismissal when an employee refuses to accept an official communication from their employer. The case, which involved a dispute between a female worker and Kyma Ambiente S.p.A., offers valuable insights for those working in employment law.
The Context: Two Behaviors Under Scrutiny
The case stemmed from a disciplinary notice issued on May 28, 2021, which challenged the employee for two specific behaviors:
- Making unauthorized audio-visual recordings in the workplace;
- Refusing to receive the formal disciplinary notice from her employer.
Both the Lecce Court of Appeal and later the Supreme Court were asked to assess the disciplinary relevance of these actions.
The appellate court had found the dismissal unlawful, concluding that the recordings, while made without consent, were conducted for the purpose of safeguarding rights and were therefore lawful under established case law. As for the second conduct—refusing the notice—it was considered an act of insubordination but of minor severity, insufficient on its own to justify dismissal.
The Appeal to the Supreme Court: A Shift in Perspective
The worker challenged the appellate ruling before the Court of Cassation, citing, among other grounds, the denial of witness testimony and an alleged failure by the employer to meet the burden of proof. However, the Supreme Court declared the first two grounds inadmissible, clearly stating that what mattered was not the content of the disciplinary note, but the employee’s refusal to accept it.
According to the Court, refusing to accept an employer’s official communication is a behavior that carries disciplinary weight in itself, as it violates the employee’s duty to cooperate and disrupts the company’s organizational efficiency. The Supreme Court emphasized that both the first and second instance courts had consistently established the facts, thus barring any further review of the matter.
In short, the act of insubordination stemming from that refusal—even if it related to a single instance—was deemed serious enough to justify dismissal. The Court reaffirmed that certain uncooperative attitudes toward the employer, especially when unjustified or repeated, can irreparably damage the trust essential to any employment relationship.
Cost Liability and the Principle of Losing Party Pays
Another critical aspect was the Court’s reasoning regarding the third ground of appeal, which concerned legal costs. The employee argued it was unfair to be ordered to pay court costs, given that the dismissal had been found unlawful. However, the Supreme Court clarified that since the worker’s appeal had been entirely rejected and no cross-appeal had been filed by the company, the lower court’s application of the “losing party pays” rule was correct.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the worker was ordered to pay legal costs for the Supreme Court proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces a key principle in Italian labor jurisprudence: refusing to engage with the employer at crucial moments in the employment relationship—such as when receiving a disciplinary notice—can amount to serious insubordination, warranting termination for cause.
In a legal landscape where protecting workers’ rights remains vital, this decision serves as a reminder that procedural rules are not mere formalities, but the backbone of integrity and fairness in employment relations.
