The reform of the discipline of dismissals, a matter of essential importance for its connection with the rights of the person of the worker and for its repercussions on the overall economic system, cannot be postponed. This was stated by the Constitutional Court in sentence no. 183 (drafted by the vice-president Silvana Sciarra), with which, while declaring inadmissible the complaints of the Court of Rome on the compensation provided for by the so-called Jobs Act for illegitimate dismissals in small businesses, a warning is addressed to the legislator to intervene urgently in this matter, providing adequate safeguards. The Constitutional Court, explains a note, found that “an indemnity forced within the small gap between a minimum of three and a maximum of six monthly payments nullifies the need to adjust the amount to the specificity of each individual case” and not it represents an appropriate and consistent remedy with the requirements of “adequacy and dissuasiveness” already affirmed by the Court itself.
“The limited gap between the minimum and maximum determined by law gives a preponderant, if not exclusive, importance to the number of employees”, and this criterion, “in a framework dominated by the incessant evolution of technology and the transformation of production processes” , is not indicative of the actual economic strength of the employer and does not even offer significant elements to determine the amount of the indemnity according to the peculiarities of each individual case.
The Council specifies that the choice of the most appropriate solutions to ensure adequate protection is up to the discretion of the legislator. Hence the urgency of a reform, urged by the Court. The Court of Rome itself envisages multiple solutions to remedy the contrasting profiles with the Constitution.
Solutions ranging from the redefinition of a distinctive criterion, centered on the number of employees, to the elimination of the special regime and the redefinition of thresholds.
Each of the hypothetical choices corresponds to “different legislative policy options” resulting from “discretionary evaluations”, writes the Court. Who, in declaring the inadmissibility of the questions, points out: “The continuation of the legislative inertia would not be tolerable”.
Therefore, if the question is re-proposed, it will directly intervene on the contested discipline. (HANDLE).
Source: Ansa
I have been working in the news industry for over 10 years now and I have worked for some of the biggest news websites in the world. My focus has always been on entertainment news, but I also cover a range of other topics. I am currently an author at Global happenings and I love writing about all things pop-culture related.
