Dismissal for Completion of Construction Works: The Court of Cassation and the Burden of Proof (Judgment no. 16769/2025)

Labor law is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Court of Cassation are fundamental beacons for interpreting legislation. Judgment no. 16769 of June 23, 2025, offers a crucial clarification on dismissal for justified objective reason, particularly in the construction sector. This decision is vital for employers and employees, defining the boundaries of termination motivated by the end of a construction site.

Justified Objective Reason: Criteria and Limits

Dismissal for justified objective reason (GMO), governed by Article 3 of Law no. 604 of 1966, is a legitimate cause for termination of employment. It occurs for reasons inherent to the productive activity, the organization of work, or its functioning (e.g., cessation of activity, reorganization, project completion). The mere completion of a work is not sufficient to justify dismissal. This is where the Court of Cassation intervenes.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: The Obligation of Repechage

Judgment no. 16769/2025, issued by the Labor Section (rapporteur Dr. B. F.), addresses the appeal of Y. (L. L.) against C. (H. F.), rejecting the decision of the Court of Appeal of Milan. The central point concerns the sufficiency of the completion of construction works as a reason for termination. The Supreme Court reiterated a fundamental principle, which is worth quoting in full:

In matters of dismissal for justified objective reason, the completion of construction works for which workers were hired is not sufficient to constitute a justified reason for termination, unless the employer proves the impossibility of utilizing the same workers in other compatible roles, with reference to the complexity of the company and the generality of the construction sites where the relevant activity is carried out.

This ruling crystallizes a key concept: the employer cannot dismiss an employee at the end of a construction project without having explored every possible avenue for redeployment. This obligation, known as the "obligation of repechage," requires verifying the impossibility of employing the employee in equivalent roles or, if compatible, even lower-level roles (subject to acceptance). The verification must extend to all branches of the company and all active construction sites, not just the completed one.

Practical Guide: What to Do for Employers and Employees

The obligation of repechage is a substantial safeguard against pretextual dismissals. Judgment no. 16769/2025 reinforces this principle, highlighting the need to consider the complexity of the company and the generality of construction sites. A construction company with multiple locations cannot limit the search for redeployment to the narrow scope of the completed construction site but must consider the entire corporate structure.

For the employer, fulfilling this obligation requires careful analysis and documentation:

• Internal Assessment: Verify the existence of vacant positions or compatible roles at any other location or construction site.
• Redeployment Offers: Offer the employee equivalent roles or, if unavailable, even lower-level roles (subject to acceptance).
• Documentation: Maintain proof of the searches conducted and the reasons for the impossibility of redeployment.

The absence of such proof renders the dismissal unlawful, with the consequent protections provided by law, which may include reinstatement or compensation for damages.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 16769 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation is an important reference for labor law, especially in the construction sector. It reiterates that the protection of the worker is a cardinal principle. Employers and professionals must pay the utmost attention to these principles, ensuring transparent and lawful management. For employees, this ruling confirms the robustness of existing protections, encouraging them to know and assert their rights.