Commentary on Judgment No. 23318/2024: Relevance of Conduct in Disciplinary Dismissal

The Court of Cassation, with order no. 23318 of August 29, 2024, addressed a crucial issue in labor law: the disciplinary relevance of an employee's conduct, even in the absence of harmful consequences for the employer or third parties. This judgment, issued by President A. Pagetta and rapporteur F. Amendola, offers important insights for understanding how the law interprets and assesses employee conduct in the context of dismissal for just cause.

Context of the Judgment

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro had excluded the disciplinary relevance of the conduct of a branch manager who had violated company regulations and customer rights, deeming that no detrimental consequences had occurred. However, the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, reaffirming that the absence of consequences does not, in itself, preclude the possibility of assessing the conduct in disciplinary terms.

Headnote of the Judgment

Conduct lacking actual detrimental consequences or concrete advantages - Subsequent elimination of harmful effects - Suitability to exclude disciplinary relevance of facts - Non-existence - Conditions - Factual circumstances. In matters of disciplinary dismissal, the absence in the conduct contested to the employee of actual detrimental consequences for the employer or third parties, or of concrete advantages for oneself or third parties, as well as any subsequent behavior aimed at eliminating its harmful effects, do not suffice in themselves to exclude the disciplinary relevance of the fact. Rather, they may contribute, along with all other objective and subjective factors revealed by the specific case, to the complex judicial assessment of the conduct's suitability to justify the exclusionary sanction. (In this specific instance, the Supreme Court annulled the appellate judgment which, due to the deemed absence of offensiveness, had excluded the disciplinary relevance of multiple instances of conduct carried out in violation of company regulations and customer rights by a branch manager of a credit institution).

Legal and Practical Implications

This judgment clarifies several fundamental points:

• The employee's conduct must be evaluated as a whole, taking into account objective and subjective factors.
• The absence of damage is not automatically synonymous with the absence of disciplinary relevance.
• Violations of company regulations can justify sanctions even in the absence of concrete damages.

Companies must pay attention to how they evaluate their employees' conduct, considering that even behaviors that do not appear to have immediate consequences can affect the employment relationship and justify disciplinary measures.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment no. 23318/2024 represents an important guide for employers and legal professionals. It emphasizes that disciplinary relevance cannot be excluded simply based on the absence of damages. A broader assessment is essential, considering the entire factual scenario and the context in which the conduct occurs. The Court of Cassation, with this ruling, sends a clear message: company rules and respect for customer rights cannot be overlooked, and violations must be addressed with due seriousness.