As evidenced by numerous cases in court, i Permission for use by workers They are often the source of legal disputes with companies and employers. For study, illness, death or serious infirmity of a family member, to take advantage of the benefits of Law 104 and more: permits are governed by law and individual national collective labor agreements and – consequently – the employee reads well. will do Carefully draft their contract, to inform them of the circumstances during which the period of absence is targetedWorking hours.
Among these benefits we also get: Permission to carry out trade union activitieswhich – however – should be used within very specific limits, without exceeding a real limit. abuse. Below we will discuss a recent case that was decided by the Supreme Court – Labor Section – and its accompanying case.Ordinance No. 29135 from a few days ago. Here’s what to know to avoid trouble with your employer. Termination for Cause Only.
Summary story
Everything is fine. Work Permit It is given to perform the function and achieve the objective, which is aimed at specific constraint in working hours. Generally, exemptions are not granted – and the issue of a permit to support disabled family members is symbolic, which, if breached, could cost you your job.
In the case that interests us here, through the service of an investigative agency, an employee – with the functions of Union representatives – He was “captured” outside the area and was carrying out activities related to personal and family reasons, which had nothing to do with the objective. Union permission Agreed first.
As we shall soon see better, during the judicial process which led to Appeal to the Supreme Courtit was found in fact that the man had not spent even an hour in meetings or other related activities despite having expressly requested permission for trade union activities for two days. Abuse of benefit.
This was followed by immediate dismissal (and without notice) due to a lack of trust in the company. Working relationships.
Judicial process
Against the maxim Disciplinary sanctionthe employee chose to take the employer to court, alleging, among other things, a violation of some of its articles. Workers’ Constitution Regarding the permit, but also the failure to state the reasons Unilateral return.
However, the judge in charge rejected the request for reinstatement and payment of compensation, affirming the correctness of the company’s choice.
A second appeal – this time of the first instance decision – was not sufficient for the employee to see that his position had allegedly been overturned. Misuse of Union Permits. Indeed, on appeal, the Magistrate reiterated the Court’s findings – emphasizing the seriousness of the fraudulent and unfair conduct and the proportionality of the sanction applied, with regard to the confirmation of infringement. Additionally, the second degree verified the authenticity of the check. Private investigator.
As can be read in the text of the court’s order, which recounts the previous facts and the judicial process up to that time, the dismissed employee then Appeal to the Supreme CourtComplaint again about misapplication of union permits as well as rules Procedural ViolationsThat is, elements that could have turned the situation in his favor according to the man’s defense.
The Supreme Court affirms the decisions of the Tribunal and appeals.
Another hole in the water between the judges in Piazza Cavour, given that the appeal of the worker and the union representative was rejected, because – mainly – of the judge’s earlier decision on the merits, the Supreme Court’s careful scrutiny. Later, fully revealed. Right from the point of view Technical legal.
No violation of procedure, nor any misinterpretation of the rules relevant to the matter Violation of Union Permits. As noted, the employee – with the “excuse” of paid union leave – used his free hours for family and strictly private reasons, effectively constituting a clear violation of the common law. was integrated. Diligence, contractual good faith and accuracy In a working relationship and in which there is a time-bound discipline. Civil Code.
Admitting the correctness of the reasoning of the merit judge, the court (also recalling its earlier decision No. 34739 of 2019) clarified that in the concrete case:
You had Deviation from basic interest (Protection of Trade Union Rights by the Provincial Trade Union Leader), since he was accustomed to the Institute. Only personal and individual interests.
In short, the Severity of abuse Based on what was done by the worker Termination for Cause Only: Misuse of Union permission In fact, it irreparably damages the relationship of trust with the employer.
No violation of employee privacy.
That’s not it. In the appeal, the man also sought to quash the company’s allegations, claiming that Private investigator It would have violated the realm of privacy. Even from this point of view, the learned Judge rejected his defence, stating that Control of employee activities was done with permission in a public place and not in a private place and which was:
The purpose of which is to find out the real reasons for the application of the Union Permit (Cass. n. 6174/2019).
Therefore, even in terms of the rules relating to confidentiality, no breach on the part of the employer has been shown, in fact Disciplinary liability of the employee benefiting from Union permission.
What changes?
With this issue, the position of worker and union representative has definitely changed. Justice has actually confirmed it. Dismissal Without further possibility of controversy. The latter was indeed considered proportionate, as it was not a simple unreasonable absence, but a serious breach of those conditions. Union permission.
The Supreme Court thus established the absence of a breach of confidentiality and an irreparable compromise of the relationship of trust – resulting in a misuse of permissions. It is for this reason that the Court, while recalling one of its precedents (Judgment No. 11759 of 2003), took the opportunity to remind that the right of permission, though a discriminatory right:
The employer has the right to control to find out himself.Effective participation of trade unions, Users of such permits, at Meetings of national or provincial governing bodies.
According to legality judges, this control can be lawfully applied even to an investigative agency and thereforeOrdinance No. 29135 In this case in the trade union realm (and another interesting recent case of these permits), personal use of the permit serves as a further warning to workers. The real risk is losing your job with a perfectly valid and legitimate termination.
