In its ruling No. 508 of August 19, 2026, the Bologna Court of Appeals clarified that the term set by the National Collective Bargaining Agreement (NCBA) for disciplinary dismissals in cases of unjustified absence cannot be extended to resignations by implied conduct. Lacking any specific collective bargaining provisions governing this matter, the statutory time limit set forth in Article 26, paragraph 7-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 151/2015 shall apply, which serves to ensure a correct assumption of the employee’s intent to terminate the employment relationship. The termination of the employment relationship: resignation by implied conduct The dispute stems from the termination of the employment relationship, which the employer company reported to the competent Italian Labour Office as due to resignation implied by conduct, pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 7-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 151/2015, on the grounds of the employee’s unjustified absence, which lasted fourteen days. More specifically, upon the expiration of the medical certificate, the employee had still not returned to work, believing he was going to be able to justify the extension of his absence through the subsequent issuance of a new medical certificate, following a dedicated visit he had already scheduled. Since the applicable National Collective Bargaining Agreement (NCBA) did not provide specific provisions regarding dismissal based on implied conducts and the absence had not yet exceeded the legal threshold of fifteen days, the company determined the applicable time limit by referring to the shorter period of just four days of unjustified absence required for disciplinary dismissal, which the latter imposed on the involved employee. Consequently, the latter challenged said decision before the competent Court, which declared it unlawful, finding that the conditions for applying the mechanism provided by law had not been met. In response, the company filed an appeal arguing that the fifteen-day period should be considered as a minimum threshold for the application of this legal provision, given the existence of a dedicated norm set forth by the applied NCBA, which referred to cases of the same nature. The legal threshold pursuant to Italian “Collegato Lavoro” of 2024 and the dedicated provisions of the NCBA: two parallel roads The dispute concerns the interpretation of Article 26, paragraph 7-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 151/2015 and whether the time limit set forth in the NCBA for disciplinary dismissal in cases of unjustified absence can be applied to deemed resignation. The provision in question stipulates that the employer may report the employee’s unjustified absence to the local labor inspectorate if such absence extends beyond the time limit set forth in the collective bargaining agreement applicable to the employment relationship or, in the absence of a specific contractual provision, for a period exceeding fifteen days. The provision’s reference to collective bargaining, therefore, does not justify the indiscriminate application of any term set forth in the NCBA regarding unjustified absences. The Bologna Court of Appeals, upholding the lower court’s decision, ruled that the contractual time limit established for disciplinary termination cannot be extended by analogy to deemed resignation, as these are distinct situations characterized by different prerequisites and purposes. In the first case, in fact, an unexcused absence is significant as a possible breach of the employee’s contractual obligations; in the second, however, the duration of the absence constitutes the basis for inferring the employee’s intention to terminate the employment relationship. These are, in fact, distinct legal concepts that cannot be conflated solely based on the similarity of the actual conduct. Consequently, in the absence of a specific collective bargaining provision applicable to resignation by conduct, the contractual time limit applicable to disciplinary dismissal cannot replace the statutory fifteen-day period. Necessary cautionary behaviour on the employer’s part acting on resignation by implied conduct This ruling provides an opportunity to reflect on the role of collective bargaining in regulating termination for implied resignation and draws companies’ attention to the need to verify not only the duration of the notice periods provided for in the NCBA, but also their specific purpose. In other words, the term to impose dismissals for just cause in case of unjustified absences cannot be deemed sufficient to justify initiating the procedure for termination for implied resignation. Before notifying the local labor inspectorate of the termination of employment, it is therefore necessary to verify whether the collective bargaining agreement expressly governs this provision and specifies the relevant notice period. In the absence of such provisions, the statutory notice period applies. The distinction is substantial: an absence may constitute a disciplinary offense without, by that fact alone, fulfilling the conditions for inferring the employee’s intent to resign. Judgment No. 508/2026 of the Bologna Court of Appeals stands with the majority of recent judgements on this matter as it provides practical guidance for handling unexcused absences, requiring a careful distinction between the employer’s disciplinary authority and the legal mechanism of deemed resignation.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
