With order no. 23565 of August 19th, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal for cause of a security guard who, on several occasions, disregarded his employer’s instructions on the correct use of service equipment. Said conduct, which was repeated and deliberate, does not constitute mere negligence, but a form of insubordination. A security guard was dismissed for cause following multiple episodes of non-compliance with company instructions, i.e., failure to equip himself with a radio transmitter and bulletproof vest, and wearing insignia and handcuffs without company authorisation. The worker subsequently lodged an appeal before the labour court, which deemed the conduct not sufficiently serious to justify the expulsion measure. In overturning this decision, the Court of Appeal of Florence ruled that the dismissal was lawful, considering the overall conduct to be insubordination, sufficient to justify dismissal for just cause, due to the “deliberate disregard for the employer’s instructions” that was typical of each of the infractions committed. The employee brought an appeal before the Italian Supreme Court, arguing that the conduct in question constituted negligence, not insubordination, and that it was therefore punishable by conservative measures under the relevant national collective bargaining agreement. The Italian Supreme Court rejected the employee’s appeal. The Italian Supreme Court noted that the appellant’s complaint required a review of the facts of the case, which is not allowed by the Supreme Court. However, the Italian Supreme Court also noted that both courts of merit had identified in the worker’s actions “a deliberate disregard for the employer’s instructions, to the extent that it constituted actual insubordination”. In this regard, the judges noted that the concept of insubordination in an employment relationship includes not only the refusal to perform the employer’s instructions, but also those behaviours – which, in the present case, according to the Court of Appeal, occurred – that prejudice “the execution and proper performance” of the employer’s instructions “within the framework of the company organisation”. The employee also complained about the lack of proportionality between the alleged violations and the measure of dismissal. Again, the Supreme Court considered that the employee’s complaint required an inadmissible review of the merits of the case. On the contrary, according to the Supreme Court, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal on the objective and subjective seriousness of the conduct contested to the worker – i.e., the repeated arbitrary violation of the employer’s instructions – is adequately argued and well above the constitutional minimum threshold, sufficient to justify dismissal for cause. The decision of the Italian Supreme Court reinforces the principle according to which insubordination may also manifest through behaviour which, although not openly hostile, is nevertheless capable of compromising the proper implementation of the employer’s directives and the organisation of the company.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
