The issue is addressed by Article 4 of the so-called Workers' Statute (L. 300/1970), which provides that, under certain conditions, the employer may use audiovisual equipment from which the possibility of remote control of workers also derives. More specifically, the possibility of installing such systems in company premises can only take place:

• for organisational and production requirements, work safety and the protection of company assets;
• subject to a collective agreement concluded with the RSU/RSA. In the case of companies with production units located in several provinces, such an agreement may be concluded by the trade union associations that are comparatively more representative at national level;
• in the absence of the agreement referred to in the preceding point, equipment may be installed subject to authorisation by the Territorial Labour Inspectorate (ITL).

In any case, workers must be given adequate information on how to use the tools and how to carry out checks. On the other hand, with regard to the tools that employees use to perform their work (e.g., e-mail, smartphones, etc.) or the tools for recording attendance or access (e.g., badges, etc.), prior authorisation or trade union agreement is not required.

According to settled case law, the provisions of para. 1 Art. 2119 of the Civil Code are also applicable to agency contracts and therefore termination for just cause also applies to this type of contract. For the configuration of a just cause for termination in the agency relationship, however, it is sufficient that the act performed is of lesser intensity than that required in the employment relationship. The fact remains that in any event the culpable breach must be such as to substantially harm the interest of the other party, so much so as not to permit, even provisionally, the continuation of the relationship. Article 2119 of the Civil Code thus being applicable, the agent who terminates for just cause is due an indemnity in lieu of notice.

First of all, it should be specified that para. 2 of Article 2112 of the Civil Code provides that the transferor and the transferee are jointly and severally liable for all claims that the employee had at the time of the transfer. In particular, in the case where the employment relationship is in existence at the time of the transfer and the accrued claims exist prior to the transfer or at the time of the transfer of the business:

• assignor and assignee are jointly and severally liable for such claims;
• the employee may only grant the transferor the possibility of releasing himself from the obligations arising from the employment relationship by signing a protected settlement agreement;
• the assignee remains liable to the employee regardless of whether it has direct knowledge of the employee's claims against the assignor or has been able to deduce them from the company books.

Concerning employment relationships terminated prior to the transfer of the Company:

• for claims accrued in the intervening employment relationship, the assignee is not liable. On the transferee's side, it would be advisable to require the assignor and employees to sign waivers and settlements settling any claims related to the prior employment relationship. It would also be advisable for the transferee to acquire guarantees from the assignor regarding any contingent liabilities.

On this point, the Agenzia delle Entrate (Italian Revenue Agency) intervened, providing clarifications with specific regard to the relevance of the reimbursement of Internet connection costs of the employee in Smart Working for the purposes of determining the employee's income. With regard to the case analysed by the Agenzia delle Entrate, it should be noted that the reimbursement by the Employer did not concern only the cost referable to the exclusive interest of the Company, since the latter would have reimbursed all the expenses incurred by the employee for the activation and the subscription fees for the Internet connection service. In addition, it is emphasised that the relationship between the use of the internet connection and the Employer's interest is doubtful. This is because the contract relating to internet traffic is not chosen and entered into by the employer, who merely reimburses the costs and remains extraneous to the contractual relationship established between the employee and the operator of the intenet data traffic. Therefore, on the basis of what has just been analysed, the cost relating to Internet traffic that the company intends to reimburse to its employee cannot be excluded from the determination of the employee's income. It will therefore have tax relevance (as well as contribution relevance) under Article 51 TUIR.

Notwithstanding the fact that work performed beyond normal working hours must be quota, it is possible for the employer and the employee to agree in writing that compensation for overtime be paid as a lump sum. In any case, this method of compensation for work performance may never be to the detriment of the employee. There must therefore be no loss of remuneration compared to what the employee would have received with the ordinary overtime compensation. We emphasise that the lump-sum compensation for overtime work agreed upon with the ‘permanent’ employee becomes to all intents and purposes a non-absorbable superminimum and therefore an element of the ordinary remuneration that cannot be unilaterally reduced by the Employer.

First of all, it is necessary to determine the reference time period in relation to which the 'comporto' period is calculated. This can be, according to what is established by the National Collective Labor Agreement (NCBA), either the calendar year or the solar year:

• A calendar year refers to the period from January 1st to December 31st of each year;
• A solar year refers to a period of 365 days starting from the first illness event.

At this point, based on the provisions of the national collective labor agreements — which also establish its duration — the 'comporto' can be classified into two types:

1.   'Single event' (secco), when the job protection period is related to a single and uninterrupted illness;
2. 'Cumulative' (per sommatoria), when the CCNL establishes a time frame within which the sum of the durations of illness periods cannot exceed a certain job protection limit (taking into account all illness events that occurred during the reference period).

In the case of the cumulative 'comporto', holidays must be counted (even in the case of consecutive certificates where the first covers the illness up to the last working day before the Sunday rest and the subsequent one certifies the illness starting from the day after Sunday) as well as non-working days.

The mandatory maternity leave period can be brought forward in the presence of:

• serious pregnancy complications or in the case of persistent health conditions that may be worsened by the pregnancy itself;
• working or environmental conditions that are harmful to the health of the mother or the unborn child;
• strenuous or unhealthy tasks assigned to the employee without the possibility of transferring her to other duties.

If any of the above conditions occur, the competent authority (ASL or ITL) orders the suspension from work until the start of the normal maternity leave. Moreover, maternity leave can be extended up to 7 months after childbirth if the working or environmental conditions are harmful to the health of the mother, or if she is assigned to strenuous, dangerous, or unhealthy tasks and cannot be reassigned to other duties.

According to Art. 10 D. Lgs. 252/2005, employers who are required to pay their employees' severance pay into a supplementary pension scheme may benefit from the following financial facilities:

• An amount equal to 4% of the amount of severance pay annually allocated to supplementary pension schemes (6% for companies with fewer than 50 employees) is deductible from company income;
• exemption from the payment of the contribution to the TFR Guarantee Fund in the same percentage as the TFR contributed to supplementary pension schemes;
• a reduction in labour costs, through a reduction in improper charges, related to the flow of accruing severance pay conferred to supplementary pensions.

In order to activate a welfare plan, there are some necessary requirements that must be met to access tax and contribution benefits. In particular, one of the transversal requirements to be met with regard to the recipients of company welfare services concerns the fact that it must concern

• the generality of employees

Or

• homogeneous categories of employees.

In the absence of a tax definition in the rule, it is useful to clarify what is indicated in Ministerial Circular No. 326/E/1997, which states that: 'with regard to the expression “categories of employees”, it is considered that company practice must be referred to all employees of a certain type for example:

• All executives or white collar or blue collar workers;
• Or everyone who has a certain level;
• Or those with a certain qualification.

In essence, ‘category’ is any homogeneous group of employees that can be grouped under a given definition without any particular limitation as to which category the employees should belong to.