Profitable dismissal. This is the new and revolutionary case of dismissal recognized for the first time in our legal system by a recent sentence of the Court of Cassation (sentence n. 25201 of 7 December 2016 - see links below).
The Court overturned the appeal judgment where the dismissal had been rejected because it was "motivated only by the reduction of costs and therefore by the mere increase" of earnings, while it is legitimate even in the case of a "more efficient corporate organization".
According to the Supreme Court, the employer can fire an employee not only in the event of economic difficulties and in situations of corporate restructuring dictated by a negative economic situation, but also for "better management efficiency" and to determine "an increase in profitability". In other words: to try to increase profits.
Specifically, the court ruled: "For the purposes of the legitimacy of the individual dismissal notified for justified objective reason pursuant to art. 3 of the I. n. 604 of 1966, the negative economic trend of the company does not constitute a factual assumption that the employer must necessarily prove and the judge ascertain, it being sufficient that the reasons inherent to the productive activity and to the organization of work, among which it is not possible to exclude those aimed at better management efficiency or at an increase in the company's profitability, which determine an effective change in the organizational structure through the suppression of an individual job position; however, if the dismissal was motivated by the need to deal with unfavorable economic situations or considerable expenses of an extraordinary nature and in court it is ascertained that the reason indicated does not exist, the withdrawal may be unjustified for a concrete assessment of the lack of truthfulness and on the speciousness of the reason given by the entrepreneur“.
Related news: Cassation. Judgment no. 25201 of 7 December 2016
Layoffs for profit, the labor lawyers: "The Cassation ruling gives new tools to dishonest companies"
A dispute with the superior does not justify dismissal
Cassation. "Permitted to monitor the worker who carries out external activities with GPS"
Cassation: bad words to the "boss"? I'm not a crime.
