Abstract
Dismissal for just cause is the most severe form of employment termination. It is a measure the employer may adopt when an event occurs that is so serious it precludes the continuation — even temporarily — of the employment relationship. Despite the apparent clarity of the rule, in practice it remains one of the most delicate and hotly debated issues for both employers and the courts. Understanding what “just cause” truly means and the criteria applied by case law is essential, both for employers and employees.
What is meant by “just cause”?
The notion of just cause is found in Article 2119 of the Italian Civil Code, which provides:
“Either party may terminate the contract prior to the agreed term, if fixed-term, or without notice, if open-ended, where a cause occurs that prevents the continuation, even temporarily, of the relationship.”
This provision allows termination when one party engages in conduct so serious that it makes further continuation of the relationship untenable—even for one more day:
- for fixed-term contracts: before the expiration of the term;
- for open-ended contracts: at any time, without respecting the notice period.
Termination in such cases is immediate, does not require notice, and does not entail payment of any substitute indemnity.
Before delving into dismissal for just cause, it is worth distinguishing between types of termination:
Dismissal for just cause occurs when the employee’s conduct is so serious as to irreparably breach the trust on which the employment relationship is based.
Dismissal for justified subjective reason, although also tied to employee behavior, is of a lesser severity (e.g., failure to follow company policies, refusal to work overtime or travel, consistently poor performance due to negligence). This type of dismissal requires notice, and the employee generally retains entitlement to unemployment benefits (NASpI).
If termination arises from economic or organizational needs of the business, it constitutes dismissal for justified objective reason, subject to different procedural requirements (e.g., mandatory notification to the Labor Inspectorate for companies with more than 15 employees).
The legal grounds and procedures for each type of dismissal vary significantly.
Which types of conduct justify dismissal for just cause?
The law does not provide a closed list of actions constituting just cause, leaving it to the courts to assess the seriousness of the conduct. In this context, collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) play an important role by offering examples of behavior that may justify summary dismissal.For instance, Article 242 of the Confcommercio Retail CBA identifies as dismissible offenses:
(a) physical altercations in the workplace, even between colleagues, that disrupt business operations;
(b) insubordination towards supervisors accompanied by offensive behavior;
(c) intentional falsification of attendance records;
(d) appropriation of company or third-party property in the workplace;
(e) intentional damage to company or third-party property;
(f) unauthorized work on company premises for personal or third-party benefit.
However, these examples are indicative not exhaustive. Even conduct not expressly listed in the CBA may justify immediate dismissal, as held by the Italian Supreme Court (Cass., Nov. 14, 1997, no. 11314).
Conversely, where the CBA specifies a non-dismissal disciplinary sanction (e.g., written warning, fine, suspension) for the conduct in question, courts generally cannot escalate it to just cause dismissal—unless there is clear evidence that the parties intended to leave open the possibility of dismissal in more serious cases (see Cass., June 17, 2011, no. 13353; Cass., May 7, 2015, no. 9223).
Some examples of conduct deemed serious enough by the courts include:
- serious insubordination (e.g., violent acts or threats, unauthorized absence, fake sick leave);
- theft or misappropriation, even of low value;
- fraudulent use of leave (e.g., using medical leave for personal activities);
- reporting to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
- failure of an apprentice minor to attend mandatory training courses;
- intentional damage to company property;
- disclosure of confidential business information;
- insults or defamation towards the employer or colleagues, including on social media;
- misuse of company resources, such as unauthorized access to IT systems.
A notable case involves revocation of a driver’s license, when such license is essential for job performance (e.g., drivers). In these cases, if revocation is imposed as a penalty for DUI or drug offenses, it may justify dismissal (pursuant to Art. 219 of the Italian Highway Code). If, however, the license is not essential, its loss generally does not constitute just cause. Still, the employer may consider other options such as reassignment to compatible duties, if available.
Even in the presence of serious conduct, dismissal will be lawful only if it is proportionate and properly justified in the specific case.
A comprehensive assessment is required: the nature of the employment relationship, the employee’s professional history, intent or negligence, and the impact on mutual trust must all be considered.
When courts uphold dismissal for just cause
The court’s analysis goes beyond checking whether the alleged conduct occurred. It must determine whether the act was serious enough to justify immediate termination without notice. The key judicial criteria are:
1. Objective and subjective seriousness of the conduct
The behavior must constitute a serious and deliberate breach of trust. Courts evaluate both objective severity and subjective intent (e.g., willful misconduct or gross negligence). Even in the absence of prior warnings, dismissal may be appropriate when the conduct irreparably destroys the relationship of trust (see Cass. no. 1074/2011).
2. Proportionality and context
The penalty must fit the offense. Inappropriate but not serious behavior may warrant a lesser disciplinary sanction. Judges assess:
- the employee’s role and seniority,
- any prior misconduct,
- and the practical consequences of the behavior.
3. The burden of proof lies with the employer.
If the employer fails to prove the facts, the dismissal may be ruled unlawful.3. Procedural complianceSince this is a disciplinary action, it must follow Article 7 of the Workers’ Statute, starting with formal written notification of the charges. The employee must have the opportunity to respond before any sanction is imposed.
Dismissal must be in writing, per Law no. 108/1990, Article 2. The grounds must be clear, specific, and timely, consistent with the principle of immediacy.
While courts allow a reasonable delay to investigate, excessive or unjustified delay can undermine the legitimacy of the dismissal, suggesting the conduct was not serious enough.
Once communicated, the grounds for dismissal cannot be changed or supplemented later. The immutability principle protects the worker’s right to defend themselves.
How to avoid errors and litigation
Dismissal for just cause affects one of the worker’s fundamental rights. Before proceeding, employers should consult an attorney specialized in labor law to evaluate:
- the nature of the conduct,
- its context,
- how it was managed,
- and the relevant case law.
Only through a thorough legal review—including prior conduct, possible recidivism, and comparison with similar cases—can an employer determine whether immediate dismissal is justified or whether a conservative sanction is more appropriate.
Finally, if the initial dismissal is annulled on procedural or substantive grounds, the employer may issue a second termination, provided it is based on a new and distinct reason. Again, the legitimacy of the second dismissal will depend on overall consistency and procedural correctness.In such a sensitive area, timeliness is important, but prudence is essential.
© Canella Camaiora S.t.A. S.r.l. - Tutti i diritti riservati.
Data di pubblicazione: 24 Giugno 2025
È consentita la riproduzione testuale dell’articolo, anche a fini commerciali, nei limiti del 15% della sua totalità a condizione che venga indicata chiaramente la fonte. In caso di riproduzione online, deve essere inserito un link all’articolo originale. La riproduzione o la parafrasi non autorizzata e senza indicazione della fonte sarà perseguita legalmente.
Debora Teruggia
Laureata presso l'Università degli Studi di Milano, praticante avvocato appassionato di Diritto del Lavoro e Diritto di Famiglia.