Unilateral Suspension of Employment Relationship: Employer's Contribution Obligation Persists - Order No. 17013 of 2025

The Italian jurisprudential landscape continues to precisely define the boundaries and responsibilities within labor law, providing clarity on crucial issues for employers and employees. A recent intervention by the Supreme Court of Cassation, Labor Section, with Order No. 17013 of June 25, 2025, has ruled on a matter of great importance: the unilateral suspension of the employment relationship by the employer and its implications in terms of contribution obligations. This ruling, with Dr. Cavallaro Luigi as rapporteur and author, offers essential insights for understanding employees' rights and companies' duties, reaffirming a core principle to protect the weaker party in the relationship.

Suspension of the Employment Relationship: A Delicate Matter

The suspension of the employment relationship occurs when, despite the contractual bond persisting, the typical performances (work on one side, remuneration on the other) temporarily cease. This can happen for various reasons, some of which are provided for by law (illness, maternity, leave, wage guarantee fund), others arising from agreements between the parties or, as in the case examined by the Cassation Court, from unilateral decisions by the employer. It is precisely this latter hypothesis that generates the greatest legal complexities and requires careful analysis of responsibilities.

When an employer decides to suspend an employee's work performance, without a legitimate cause or an objective impossibility not attributable to them, a scenario arises where the employee, while remaining available, cannot carry out their activity. The crucial question that arises is: what are the consequences of such a unilateral and unjustified choice, especially in relation to the obligation to pay social security contributions?

The Principle Affirmed by the Cassation Court: Order No. 17013/2025

Order No. 17013 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation, intervening in the judgment between I. M. and C. L., quashed and remanded a previous decision by the Court of Palermo of October 24, 2019, providing a clear and incisive interpretation. The core of the decision is encapsulated in the following maxim:

In case of unilateral suspension of the employment relationship by the employer, which is not justified by absolute impossibility, not attributable to them, to cooperate in the performance of the service, the contribution obligation remains, as the remuneration due to the employee must be considered owed pursuant to art. 12, law no. 153 of 1969.

This maxim crystallizes a fundamental principle: if the employer suspends the relationship without a valid reason – that is, without a genuine "absolute impossibility" of receiving the work performance, not due to their fault – the obligation to pay social security contributions remains intact. The Cassation Court expressly refers to art. 12 of Law No. 153 of 1969, which establishes that the remuneration due to the employee, even if not physically received due to a unilateral action by the employer, must still be considered owed.

"Absolute impossibility not attributable" refers to exceptional and unforeseeable situations, such as an event of force majeure (a natural disaster preventing access to the workplace) or an authority's order (a closure order). Mere organizational difficulties or business choices that do not constitute a true objective impossibility do not fall into this category. The employer invoking such impossibility has the burden of proving its absolute and non-attributable nature, according to the general principles of the Civil Code regarding obligations and non-performance (arts. 1218, 1256, 1463, 1464 of the Italian Civil Code).

The Court's decision aligns with established jurisprudence (see also No. 37716 of 2022) aimed at protecting employees from employer arbitrariness, ensuring contribution continuity even during periods of forced inactivity not justified by the company. In essence, business risk cannot be transferred to the employee in the form of unpaid contributions.

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

The consequences of this ruling are significant for both parties in the employment relationship:

• For Employers: The Order reiterates the need for extremely cautious and legitimate management of relationship suspensions. Any unilateral decision must be supported by valid reasons of objective and non-attributable impossibility. Otherwise, the employer exposes themselves not only to the risk of having to pay remuneration (as "owed" even if not worked) but also the related social security contributions, with possible penalties and interest. The burden of proof for such impossibility rests entirely with the company.
• For Employees: The ruling strengthens the employee's position, providing them with important protection in terms of social security rights. Even if the work performance is unilaterally suspended by the employer without valid justification, the right to remuneration (and therefore to contributions) remains intact. This is crucial for accumulating contribution years for pension purposes and for accessing other social security and welfare benefits.
• For Social Security Institutions: INPS and other social security institutions have a clear regulatory and jurisprudential reference point to act in recovering unpaid contributions in cases of unjustified suspensions, safeguarding the balance of the social security system.

Conclusions

Order No. 17013 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is part of a regulatory and jurisprudential framework aimed at safeguarding the stability of the employment relationship and the social security protection of employees. It serves as a warning to employers to operate in full compliance with the law, avoiding arbitrary suspensions that can generate significant burdens and disputes. For employees, on the other hand, it is a confirmation that the right to remuneration and social security contributions is an unshakeable pillar, even in the face of non-compliant employer conduct. It is always advisable, in situations of suspension or dispute, to seek legal professionals for a correct assessment of one's position and to best protect one's rights.