Out-of-office friendships are often formed between colleagues and help improve teamwork. Individual performance will also benefit, as will the productivity of the company, thanks to a cohesive team of workers, in a compact manner, for defined objectives. The employer.
Be careful, however, not to exaggerate the secrecy of relationships, as the risk leads to “sponsored” behavior that can seriously damage your career. One woman knows something about this, who chose to delegate this task to her late arrival at work. Stamping of Card to a partner. A lightness at the cost of which affects operations and corporate decision-making. Termination for Cause Only.
These facts led to a court case reaching the Supreme Court: let’s see how it went and what the Supreme Court decided.Ordinance No. 28248 from a few days ago.
Case
There are situations in which Late for work is tolerated, although the employee clearly needs to respect it.Working hours established by contract. Delays of a few minutes, road accidents, public transport strikes, health or family emergencies, natural disasters are events that can lead to excusable delays, but be careful: the employee must inform the employer as soon as possible. Must and must document the validity of the reason for not being on time.
However, in other situations, it is not the number of minutes of tardiness that weighs on the employee at the disciplinary level, but Misconduct and loyalty towards the company. The court dispute that interests us here – one of many regarding timetables, as we have seen recently – began with the dismissal of an employee.
Actually, his Entry time In company – 8.27am on a given day – does not match. Electronic badge stamping – 9:33. The reason for this “duplication” is that, as mentioned above, it was a colleague who clocked it for him to cover up the delay. Basically, one False and fake verification of presence By a colleague in the office.
Improper use of badges and time clocks by agreement with another employee resulted in the strictest sanction of disciplinary dismissal. In fact, the company considered it irreparably broken A relationship of trust Based on the employment contract.
According to the employer, the woman was responsible for one. Serious non-complianceIn contrast to Duties of accuracy, diligence and good faith Referred to in the Civil Code. Thus it reached the woman. Termination letter Ccnl Industria Metalmechanica Privata with indication of rule, deemed violation.
Judicial process
The employer’s decision was challenged, but the court decided to dismiss the woman’s claims, which were upheld. Termination for Cause Only. In the second example, the results were not different.
In fact, as reported byOrdinance No. 28248 of the Supreme Courtwhich definitively decided the dispute:
The judges in the second instance found that: a) it had been done; Proved the objective element of the charge. As the workman entered the company at 9.30 am and not at 8.33 am, as shown by his personal badge and elements obtained during the trial, it was his colleague who volunteered to replace him. . b) Subjective element was also not lacking because in its existence Voluntary and intentional behavior A false endorsement of attendance and not a mere exculpatory error Agreement between the parties.
An appellate judge was therefore also correct. Reason for termination only and therefore the sanction imposed should have been considered proportionate to that conduct. gave Serious violationActs to cheat and evade the control system were revealed, determining the impossibility of continuing the work experience.
The decision of the Supreme Court
The employee appealed to the judges of Piazza Cavour against the conviction of the second degree, with an ad hoc appeal, arguing the disproportionality of the sanction and the misinterpretation of the regional judges. According to the woman, in fact, merit judges based their convictions on a misrepresentation of the evidence, not measuring the verdict on the accomplice’s behavior. He was the actual material author of the incident and therefore the worker should not have been held responsible for what happened.
In Ordinance Cassation However, it essentially shared the Court of Appeal’s thesis, because the latter:
Without dwelling on any of the reported violations of the law, he limited himself to analyzing the behavior charged and the disciplinary complaint note and dismissal letter (fraudulent use of company badges to record attendance). Described in both.
In the light of the elements brought to its attention, the Supreme Court then considered that the reasoning of the Judges in making the decision on the merits was coherent and logical, and as such ascertained its actual existence. Reason for termination only 2119 Civil Code for Art.
In particular, the Court highlighted that the evaluations of the appellate judges, in addition to being “adequate”, were made with reasons free of defects as defined in Art. 360 paragraph 1 n. 5 Civil Procedure Code. As a result, there is no room for any kind of examination on them in the Supreme Court.
And, recalling one of its precedents (Cass. n. 16467/2017) the Court then added that:
gave Evaluation of test results and judgments about the reliability of texts, such as the selection, among various evidentiary inferences, that are considered most appropriate to support the motive. A review of the facts is reserved for the judge on the merits.who is free to convince himself by the evidence he considers most reliable, without the necessity of clearly contradicting other pieces of evidence, whether alleged by the parties.
What changes?
With this order of the Supreme Court, nothing has changed for the worker: the dismissal was confirmed and his petition dismissed. The court has indeed considered it appropriate. The logical legal route Which led the appellate judge to affirm the court’s decision, considering the fact in dispute to exist – from an objective and subjective point of view – and even though it was the only incident on which the dismissal was based.
In fact, the ordinance states that:
The Regional Court is well justified. Confirmation of content of fraudulent conduct and its volitional and deliberate existence, characterized precisely. Intended to affect the control system Prepared by the employer to record the employee’s attendance.
It is for this reason that the restriction imposed was held to be proportionate to the anti-competitive conduct. For the majority of employed workers, the Supreme Court’s provision does not change a strong jurisprudential trend, but it should avoid frivolous practices, which could prove detrimental to the workplace.
