The Italian Court of Ragusa stated the lawfulness and proportionality of the dismissal of an employee who repeatedly and arbitrarily performed work under a remote working regime, without entering into a prior individual agreement. In the case decided with judgment dated July 11th, 2025, the claimant, who had been employed under an open-ended full-time contract since March 1st, 1988, challenged the dismissal dated February 22nd, 2024, claiming it to be unlawful due to the absence of the alleged facts and the disproportion of the disciplinary sanction imposed. The employee stated his right to carry out his work assignments remotely under emergency legislation, claiming to meet the statutory requirements (i.e., being a father to a child younger than 14) and denying any disruption to service or breach of disciplinary rules. Additionally, he reported that the company failed to display its disciplinary code in public spaces within its own premises. The dismissal was later imposed following disciplinary action taken against the employee regarding his improper use of remote clock-ins via VPN connection, which was made without formal authorisation for agile work and, in any case, without the employer and the employee having executed any proper agreement on the matter. In the dismissal letter, the company stated that this behaviour was an arbitrary performance of work, contrary to the terms of the contract and the company’s Code of Ethics. The defendant company chose not to appear in court. The claimant invoked several national provisions to his defense (e.g., Decree-Law No. 34/2020, No. 48/2023 and No. 145/2023), arguing that employees who are parent to children under 14 (while the other parents is also an employee), are entitled to agile work as it envisages a subjective right not subject to prior authorization or the execution of an individual agreement. The Italian Court rejected this interpretation, referring to the general framework set out in Law No. 81/2017 and the Italian National Protocol of December 7th, 2021, signed at the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies. It reaffirmed that remote work requires a written individual agreement between employer and employee, detailing the execution modalities, the exercise of managerial and disciplinary powers, and the applicable safety and disconnection measures. Accordingly, the Court of Ragusa held that the employee’s decision to work remotely was unlawful and worthy of disciplinary action, given that it was made without the presence of any proper agreement or authorisation. It deemed it a breach of statutory, contractual, and internal company rules. The Court emphasised the repeated nature of the conduct (42 remote clock-ins between January and October 2023), the employee’s awareness of its unlawfulness, and the absence of formal communications, all of which amounted to a serious and intentional breach of diligence and good faith obligations. Furthermore, with reference to the employee’s claim regarding the company’s failure to correctly display its disciplinary code, the judge referred to previous national case-law according to which this requirement is not necessary when the conduct being sanctioned violates legal provisions or provisions falling within the so-called “minimum ethical standards” (and, therefore, subject to disciplinary action according to common sense). Conversely, openly sharing the company’s disciplinary code is essential to enforce obligations related to company or local operating practices, which may not be known to the worker (Italian Supreme Court, No. 4826/2017). In light of the above, the Italian Court found the dismissal proportionate and lawful, rejecting the claim in its entirety. The ruling reiterates the consensual and regulated nature of the agile working regime, excluding any unilateral determinations by employees regarding the modalities for performing work duties.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
