Reading a Cassation sentence that endorses a dismissal is not only distressing, it also forces us to reflect for the simple reason that reading captures and interests exclusively our noble part, unlike hearing a sentence that endorsed a dismissal because it "produces greater profit". Feeling almost exclusively involves our instinctive part, especially the belly.
Based on what I have read and thought I understood, I try to make a reasoning free from prejudices based on the elements that the Sentence provides us, which are ultimately three, and on my belief that there are no honest people by Divine Right and dishonest people by demonic wickedness . They are simply sides of the same coin that we must strive to govern.
Let's get into the merits.
I read that Mr. … (omitted) … is a manager of the company Riva del Sole, I assume he is not a mere executor of orders but has his own decision-making autonomy. in fact the Executive has a different contract from the Employee, generally discusses the favorable and unfavorable clauses directly with the employer as well as a parachute adequate to the level he covers in case of dismissal.
Having ascertained that he is not a simple worker and that he cannot leverage the residual protections of the Workers' Statute, let's read what the Cassation says.
First of all, it does not justify the Dismissal with the concept "... of the mere increase in profit" motivation adopted by the Court of Appeal to overturn the First Instance Sentence which considered the Dismissal legitimate as "effectively motivated by the technical need to streamline the the so-called Chain of Command and therefore Company management”.
The Cassation finds itself having to settle two opposing sentences and legitimates the first by deeming that the dismissal of a manager can be motivated ".. by the technical need to streamline the so-called chain of command even if this produces savings and incidentally could increase the profit".
In my opinion
The Executive responds to different rules from the Salaried employee because he has different protections, has greater honors in the face of greater charges, greater advantages in the face of greater risks which can also lead to dismissal on the whole, in most cases, in the contractual clauses, he is required duly considered and adequately remunerated, if you accept the benefits you must also accept the risks.
This is what I took from the sentence that does not scandalize me.
Antonio Giammei
Related news: Cassation. Judgment no. 25201 of 7 December 2016
Cassation. Legitimate to fire to increase profit
Layoffs for profit, the labor lawyers: "The Cassation ruling gives new tools to dishonest companies"
