The Tribunal of Ravenna, in ascertaining the illegality of the disciplinary dismissal based on numerous late disputes (and other generic or irrelevant ones), ordered the reinstatement of the worker pursuant to art. 18, co. 4 of the Workers’Statue, in declared dissent from the orientation of the 2017 Joined Chambers of the Court of Cassation, according to which the belatedly contested fact is still an unlawful fact and therefore the unlawful dismissal should give rise to the strong indemnity protection referred to in co. 5 of art. 18 of the Workers’Statue. According to the Ravenna Judge, the prolonged inertia of the employer in front of theemployee’s behavior canbeconsidered as animplicit declaration of the will not to prosecute the fact, and therefore of the non-existence of a concrete injury to one’s interests; consequently, in the absence of the requirement of unlawfulness, the belatedly contested fact is a non-existent fact, and therefore the reinstatement protection and not the merely indemnity one is applied.
Il Giudice del Lavoro di Ravenna, nell’accertare l’illegittimità del licenziamento disciplinare basato su numerose contestazioni tardive (ed altre generiche o non rilevanti), ha disposto la reintegrazione del lavoratore ai sensi dell’art. 18, comma 4, Stat. lav., in dichiarato dissenso dall’orientamento delle Sezioni Unite della Corte di cassazione del 2017, secondo cui il fatto tardivamente contestato è pur sempre un fatto antigiuridico e quindi il licenziamento illegittimo dovrebbe dar luogo alla tutela indennitaria forte di cui al comma 5 dell’art. 18 Stat. lav. Secondo il Giudice di Ravenna la prolungata inerzia del datore di lavoro di fronte al comportamento del dipendente può essere considerata quale dichiarazione implicita della volontà dinon perseguire il fatto, e quindi dell’insussistenza di una lesione in concreto dei propri interessi; di conseguenza, mancando il requisito dell’antigiuridicità, il fatto tardivamente contestatoè un fatto insussistente, e pertanto trova applicazione la tutela reintegratoria e non quella meramente indennitaria
Le tutele applicabili al licenziamento disciplinare intempestivo: un dibattito mai sopito
Carmela Garofalo
2022-01-01
Abstract
The Tribunal of Ravenna, in ascertaining the illegality of the disciplinary dismissal based on numerous late disputes (and other generic or irrelevant ones), ordered the reinstatement of the worker pursuant to art. 18, co. 4 of the Workers’Statue, in declared dissent from the orientation of the 2017 Joined Chambers of the Court of Cassation, according to which the belatedly contested fact is still an unlawful fact and therefore the unlawful dismissal should give rise to the strong indemnity protection referred to in co. 5 of art. 18 of the Workers’Statue. According to the Ravenna Judge, the prolonged inertia of the employer in front of theemployee’s behavior canbeconsidered as animplicit declaration of the will not to prosecute the fact, and therefore of the non-existence of a concrete injury to one’s interests; consequently, in the absence of the requirement of unlawfulness, the belatedly contested fact is a non-existent fact, and therefore the reinstatement protection and not the merely indemnity one is applied.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.