In Order No. 8402 of 3 April 2026, the Supreme Court once again ruled on the issue of the non-reducibility of remuneration, focusing on the legislative amendments affecting Article 2103 of the Civil Code. Today, employers and employees may enter into agreements, in a protected setting, to reduce remuneration, provided that this ensures the safeguarding of continued employment, the improvement of living conditions or the development of the worker’s career path. The case stems from an appeal brought by a manager against his employer, seeking a declaration of nullity of a pay-reduction agreement signed in 2013, outside protected proceedings, to address a corporate financial crisis. This agreement, initially intended to be temporary, had instead been extended for several years, resulting in a permanent reduction in pay. The executive, therefore, sought a declaration that the agreement was null and void, with consequent recognition of the pay differences accrued over time. The Milan Court of Appeal, overturning the first-instance decision, had upheld the executive’s claim, declaring the agreement null and void and recognising the right to the accrued salary differences. In ruling on the present case, the judges retraced the evolution of Article 2103 of the Civil Code, highlighting how, before the amendments introduced by the Jobs Act (Legislative Decree No. 81/2015), the principle of the irreducibility of remuneration did not have an independent scope but was closely linked to the prohibition on demotion and the protection of the worker’s professional status. Remuneration could not be reduced because the employer’s right to make changes was limited to the assignment of duties that were at least equivalent. Under the current regime, the protection of remuneration has an independent status, and the conclusion of individual agreements to reduce remuneration is therefore permitted, regardless of any deterioration in the employee’s duties, provided that this is done through a signed agreement in a protected setting. In the Supreme Court’s view, the Court of Appeal had erred in applying the reformed legislation to an agreement entered into before it entered into force. The agreement in question had, in fact, been entered into in 2013 and had remained in force ‘at least until 23 June 2015, whilst Article 2103 of the Civil Code in its pre-reform form was in force’; it therefore had to be assessed in the light of the previous legal regime, with the consequent need to verify its validity in accordance with the principles in force at that time. The principle of the irreducibility of remuneration must therefore be interpreted as a limit on private autonomy, implemented through procedural safeguards for workers; protected forums, in fact, play a central role in ensuring that the worker’s consent is free and informed. According to the Supreme Court, the regional court erred in law by basing its decision to declare the agreement null and void on the retroactive application of a provision that was not in force at the time of the events. For these reasons, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for a fresh examination of the dispute.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
