Disciplinary dismissal: the Supreme Court of Cassation on the proportionality of sanctions
In Ordinance No. 3146/2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation clarifies that disciplinary dismissal is only lawful in cases of "notable breach." The Court emphasizes that "just cause" is an elastic concept requiring a case-by-case analysis of proportionality, taking into account the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) and the specific context of the employee's conduct.
The Supreme Court of Cassation, through Ordinance No. 3146 of February 12, 2026, has revisited the critical issue of disciplinary dismissal and the proportionality of sanctions. The ruling reaffirms the criteria that must guide the judiciary when verifying the lawfulness of an employment termination, defining the scope of the court’s review of legality and clarifying the parameters for assessing the gravity of disciplinary misconduct.
Factual background and legislative framework
The case originated from a disciplinary dismissal issued to an employee following an offensive phone call directed at the Human Resources Manager.
The Court of Appeal of Florence had previously excluded the existence of "just cause" (giusta causa) or "subjective justified motive" (giustificato motivo soggettivo). While the court found the behavior censurable, it determined it was not severe enough to warrant the "expulsive sanction" of dismissal. Consequently, the employment relationship was declared terminated, and the company was ordered to pay an indemnity equal to twelve months' salary, not subject to social security contributions.
The employer appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation, arguing that the lower courts had conducted a proportionality assessment detached from the legal definition of "just cause."
The legal issue under review
The central point of contention concerned the correct application of Article 2119 of the Italian Civil Code and the regulations governing individual dismissals. The appellant company argued that the lower court should have first defined the legal notion of just cause before evaluating the proportionality of the sanction.
However, the Supreme Court of Cassation declared the plea inadmissible, citing established legal principles:
- The assessment of the gravity of the infringement and its suitability to constitute just cause or subjective justified motive is a finding of fact reserved for the lower court (the "judge of merit");
- Such an assessment can only be challenged in the Supreme Court in the presence of logical or legal errors.
The ruling and the principle of law: the "elastic" nature of just cause
The Ordinance reiterates that "just cause" and "subjective justified motive" are elastic legal concepts. The judge must give substance to these concepts by evaluating the gravity of the breach in light of the specific circumstances of the case.
In particular, the Supreme Court reminds that an expulsive sanction is justified only when the breach:
- Demonstrates a notable character in relation to contractual obligations;
- Or renders the continuation of the employment relationship, even on a provisional basis, impossible.
The role of collective bargaining
A significant portion of the ruling concerns the weight of the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL). The Supreme Court emphasizes that:
- Disciplinary classifications contained within the CCNL must be considered by the judge;
- Collective bargaining may provide for conditions more favorable to the worker;
- The violation of a collective agreement now serves as a direct parameter for review by the Supreme Court of Cassation.
Concrete assessment criteria
The Court confirmed that a proportionality judgment must be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the event, taking into account, inter alia:
- The intensity of the intentional element (intent/negligence);
- The degree of trust required by the specific job duties;
- The duration of the employment relationship;
- The absence of prior disciplinary records;
- The context in which the incident occurred.
In this specific case, the Court of Appeal correctly applied these criteria, deeming the offensive phone call an "isolated outburst" (episodio di impeto) that was not capable of irreparably damaging the bond of trust (vincolo fiduciario).
Operational and practical implications
This decision reinforces a rigorous orientation for employers:
- Context is key: Disciplinary dismissal requires a concrete and contextualized verification of the gravity of the facts.
- Not an automatic right: Offensive conduct does not automatically justify summary dismissal.
- CCNL Compliance: Alignment with the provisions of the applicable CCNL is of decisive importance.
From a defense perspective, it is essential to provide detailed documentation regarding the actual damage to the bond of trust. Furthermore, the ruling confirms that the judge must perform a global, rather than abstract, evaluation of the conduct. Elements such as the absence of prior disciplinary history and the emotional context of the act can significantly influence the judicial outcome.
On a procedural level, it is reaffirmed that the Supreme Court's oversight remains limited to the legal and logical soundness of the reasoning, while the assessment of infractions and their severity remains the exclusive prerogative of the lower courts.
