Collective Dismissal: Analysis of Ordinance No. 10197 of 2024
In an ever-evolving work environment, the management of collective dismissal procedures is a matter of significant importance for both employers and employees. Ordinance No. 10197 of April 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important clarifications regarding the communication to initiate the mobility procedure, emphasizing the need to specify the professional profiles of surplus personnel.
The Need for Specification of Professional Profiles
As established by Article 4, paragraph 3, of Law No. 223 of 1991, the communication to initiate the mobility procedure cannot be limited to generic indications concerning the categories of surplus personnel, such as blue-collar workers, intermediate staff, white-collar workers, middle managers, and senior executives. The Court has stressed that such generality is insufficient to ensure the transparency and correctness of the collective dismissal procedure.
- The specification of professional profiles allows for effective monitoring of procedural correctness.
- It promotes greater clarity in the planning of company restructuring.
- It avoids future disputes, ensuring greater protection for employees.
The Role of the Union Agreement
A crucial aspect that emerged from the ordinance is that the conclusion of a union agreement during the consultation procedure cannot remedy the defect in the initial communication. In fact, if the agreement itself omits the specification of professional profiles, the procedure is flawed, despite the good faith of the parties involved.
Communication to initiate the mobility procedure - Identification of surplus personnel - Specification of professional profiles - Necessity - Indication by categories - Sufficiency - Exclusion - Basis - Remediation through union agreement - Conditions. In the context of collective dismissal for staff reduction, the communication to initiate the mobility procedure, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of Law No. 223 of 1991, must specify the "professional profiles of the surplus personnel" and cannot be limited to a generic indication of the categories of surplus personnel (blue-collar workers, intermediate staff, white-collar workers, middle managers, and senior executives). Such a generic indication is not sufficient to concretize the company restructuring plan and to allow timely control, in all its phases, over the procedural correctness of the operation carried out by the employer. Furthermore, the subsequent conclusion of a union agreement within the consultation procedure does not remedy the defect of the initial communication if the agreement also omits the specification of the professional profiles of the workers subject to dismissal.
Conclusions
In summary, Ordinance No. 10197 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of the need to follow clear and detailed procedures in cases of collective dismissal. The specification of professional profiles is not merely a formal requirement but a guarantee of correctness and transparency that protects both the rights of employees and the interests of companies. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to significant legal consequences, requiring careful reconsideration of personnel management strategies during restructuring phases.
