With sentence number 20440/2015, filed on 12 October, the legitimacy judges declared legitimate the dismissal perpetrated to the detriment of a worker after a series of checks carried out with the GPS satellite system and with an investigative agency.
The case arrives in Cassation from the Court of Appeal of Turin, which, with a ruling of November 2013, confirmed the decision of the Court of first instance rejecting the appeal filed by the worker for the declaration of illegitimacy of the dismissal.
In the case examined, the worker affected by the dismissal carried out the duties of coordinator of the work of other employees in charge of urban cleaning in the territory of some municipalities in the province of Turin, working from six to twelve thirty and using the company vehicle.
The Piedmontese Court highlighted that in the debit communications made to the worker, the removal from the area of activity and the numerous breaks were rightly contested. He further observed that the control carried out by the supplier company outside the company premises by means of security guards, or the like, and with the use of tools for the location of vehicles (GPS) is lawful and that, in any case, even if the worker has a certain operational autonomy is always required to respect the time limits of the breaks and to respect the limits of the territories of competence.
The behavior of the worker therefore constituted a just cause for termination of the employment relationship since they compromised the relationship of trust between the worker and the employer
The worker appeals to the Cassation contesting the lack of immediacy of the disciplinary dispute, the illegitimacy of the dismissal and the intentionality of the offence. The Stoats considered all the reasons given by the worker to be unfounded.
The Court, in particular, focused on the legitimacy of the dismissal preceded by the use of private investigators and the GPS control system installed on the car used by the worker.
The provisions of the Workers' Statute impose specific ways of using security guards, supervisory personnel and remote control equipment. But these prohibitions, underlined the Court, "concern the control over the ways of fulfilling the work obligation, but not also the behavior of the worker harmful to the company's assets and image."
For this reason, defensive checks are not illegitimate, those checks, in other words, which have the purpose of highlighting conduct unrelated to normal work activity.
This orientation, however, is undisputed and consolidated, argues the Court, especially as in the case under examination, when the work activity is carried out outside the company premises.
The worker's fourth reason for grievance concerning the choice of break minutes also deserves brief mention.
According to the Court, it is absolutely to be excluded that the determination of the time and duration of rest breaks - which should not be confused with the physiological need to go to the toilets - is left to the discretion of the worker.
Related news: Jobs act and license to fire: what remedies?
