It is worth noting, as it applies general principles regarding ‘just cause’ under Article 2119 of the Civil Code, as established in the case law of the Supreme Court, Order No. 3146, published on 12 February 2026, in which the Court of Cassation held that a telephone altercation between an employee – a manual worker – and his line manager was not sufficient to constitute just cause for dismissal, where the employee had expressed “… recriminatory and offensive content …” which “…. due to its tone and language, objectively went beyond the bounds of a civilised exchange within the context of professional relations, such as those between the two parties …” but did not make any threats towards his superior.
According to the Supreme Court, therefore, an altercation in which an employee uses angry language, even if they make accusatory and offensive remarks, is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute just cause for dismissal.
In order to justify its decision, the Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive review of the principles developed over time regarding ‘just cause’ under Article 2119 of the Civil Code, noting in particular that:
– the assessment of the seriousness of conduct attributed to an employee and the determination as to whether such conduct constitutes just cause for dismissal are matters of fact to be decided by the trial courts (at first instance and on appeal);
– the determination of just cause, as a ‘flexible’ concept based on a catch-all provision (Article 2119 of the Civil Code), must be made on the basis of an assessment of whether the conduct in question is inconsistent with the values enshrined in the legal system and/or with the guidelines derived from collective bargaining agreements;
– Any reference to the categories of just cause set out in collective agreements must be made, as a matter of priority, with due regard to the intention of the contracting parties (Article 1362 of the Civil Code) and to the fact that such categories are, as a rule, illustrative rather than exhaustive (Article 1364 of the Civil Code).
That said, the Supreme Court held that the altercation between the employee and his line manager, although characterised by offensive and accusatory language on the part of the worker, was not sufficient to constitute just cause for the contested dismissal.
Applying, therefore, the relevant legislation in force at the time (Legislative Decree 23/2015 – the so-called Jobs Act), the Supreme Court confirmed that the employee was not entitled to reinstatement – given the absence of the conditions set out in Article 3(2) of Legislative Decree 23/2015 – and, imposing a purely compensatory penalty pursuant to Article 3(1) of Legislative Decree 23/2015, upheld the judgment of the Florence Court of Appeal which, given the unlawfulness of the employer’s termination, ordered the company to pay the worker compensation equivalent to 12 months’ salary.