Union Settlements agreements: assistance must be genuine and effective

Effective union assistance and a “protected” venue are essential requirements for the validity of settlements involving workers’ inalienable rights

With its ordinance no. 9286 of April 8, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) reaffirmed a fundamental principle in employment law: waivers and settlements concerning workers’ rights derived from mandatory legal provisions or collective agreements are valid and non-contestable only if signed with effective union assistance and within a properly protected venue.

What does the Italian Civil Code say about labor-related settlements?

Article 2113 of the Italian Civil Code establishes the general rule that waivers and settlements involving inalienable workers’ rights are null and void. However, the fourth paragraph introduces an exception: non-contestability applies if the agreement is signed in specific “protected venues”, including union premises.

This exception, due to its derogatory nature, must be interpreted strictly. The Supreme Court emphasized that a mere formal label of “union venue” is not sufficient for the agreement to be valid—there must be concrete and verifiable safeguards.

The Case Decided by the Supreme Court

In the case at hand, the employee signed a settlement agreement on the same day as his dismissal, in the presence of a representative of the UGL union, but within the company’s premises. The Court of Appeal had considered the agreement valid, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling.

The judges held that:

• Union assistance must be effective, meaning it must ensure that the employee is fully aware of the rights being waived and the consequences of the settlement;
• The venue of the settlement matters, not just as a formality but functionally: company premises do not qualify as a neutral setting, lacking the independence needed to guarantee genuine freedom of will;
• The union venue must be genuinely independent, otherwise it cannot ensure the worker’s autonomous decision-making.

Established Legal Standards: Effectiveness, Venue, Awareness

According to a well-established legal doctrine (Cass. no. 24024/2013; no. 1975/2024), for a union settlement to be non-contestable, the following conditions must be met:

• The union representative must be chosen or at least accepted by the worker;
• The negotiation must be conducted in a manner that ensures the employee is informed and free from coercion;
• The agreement must clearly state the disputed matter and the mutual concessions, as required by Article 1965 of the Civil Code in case of settlements.

Practical Implications for Employers and Unions

The Supreme Court’s ordinance no. 9286/2025 prompts a reconsideration of some common but risky practices. Employers who conclude settlements within company premises—even with a union representative present—must be aware that such agreements may be contestable if they do not fully meet the requirements of “effectiveness” and “neutrality.”

Likewise, union representatives must play an active and informed role—not merely acting as passive witnesses. Otherwise, the settlement may be deemed invalid.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court confirms that union settlements are not a shortcut to bypass worker protections, but a structured procedure that requires compliance with precise substantive standards. Where these guarantees are lacking, the general rule prevails: the agreement may be challenged and potentially declared void.