The Court of Trento issued a decision rejecting the remuneration claims brought by an employee concerning the time spent donning and doffing the work uniform—despite the fact that said uniform qualified as mandatory personal protective equipment (PPE)—as well as the time allegedly required to shift handover with the outgoing colleague and for showering at the end of the work shift. The matter brought before the Court of Trento concerns the claim of an employee engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles, who sought recognition—strictly for remuneration purposes—of the time spent on (i) donning and doffing the company uniform (commonly referred to as “changing time”), (ii) shift handover activities, and (iii) post-shift showering. The claimant asserted that, in order to access the “hot zone” of the production department, it was mandatory—pursuant to a specific company regulation—to wear a uniform qualifying as personal protective equipment (PPE), along with gloves, protective goggles, and earplugs, all provided by the respondent company. These operations were to be carried out exclusively within the company’s changing rooms. Furthermore, the claimant alleged that employees were required to enter the hot zone ten minutes prior to the start of their shift to perform handover duties, and that, for hygiene reasons, it was necessary to use the company’s shower facilities at the end of the shift. Accordingly, the claimant requested that the company be ordered to pay remuneration for the following time periods: twenty minutes for changing, ten minutes for handover, and five minutes for showering. The respondent company denied the existence of any obligation to change into or out of the uniform on company premises, arguing that employees were free to execute such operations at home. It further contested the significance of the handover period and denied that showering was mandatory, noting that many employees did not make use of that facility. Lastly, it maintained that the time required to wear the additional PPE was negligible, i.e., no more than five seconds. The Court assessed the matter in light of Article 1, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 66/2003, which defines working time as any period during which the worker is i) working, ii) at the employer’s disposal, and iii) carrying out their duties. The Court reaffirmed—citing settled case law of both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Italian Court of Cassation (see Cass. 16 May 2021, No. 13639)—that the employer is obliged to remunerate changing time only where the time and place of such operations are imposed by the employer, thereby establishing a situation of managerial control (in Italian, “eterodirezione”). The Court of Cassation, as referenced by the Judge from Trento, clarified that such managerial control may be: explicit, where the obligation to change on company premises is provided for in the individual employment contract, the applicable collective bargaining agreement or a company regulation; Implicit, where the obligation arises from the nature or function of the uniform, even in the absence of a formal provision. Having found that, in the present case, there was neither an explicit nor implicit form of managerial control, the judge excluded the possibility of qualifying the time spent dressing and undressing the uniform as remunerable working time. A different conclusion was reached regarding minor PPE (gloves, goggles, earplugs). The judge acknowledged the existence of implicit managerial control in respect of these items— as it is not reasonable that they may be worn outside the company—but deemed the time required to don them to be negligible and therefore insufficient to give rise to a right to remuneration, in accordance with established case law (Italian Supreme Court, June 16th, 2023, No. 17326). With regard to the handover period, the Court found that the company practice alleged by the claimant was not substantiated by the witnesses, and therefore denied the right to remuneration for that activity. Lastly, concerning the post-shift shower, the judge found no evidence of any employer-imposed obligation as to the time or place of its use, and accordingly excluded any entitlement to remuneration in this respect as well.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
