The Employee's Working Hour Obligation Between Leave and Sickness: The Court of Cassation's Interpretation with Order No. 15558 of 2025

In the complex landscape of Italian labor law, the management of working hour obligations and their interaction with periods of legitimate absence, such as holidays and sickness, represent a subject of constant debate and fundamental importance for both employees and employers. The Supreme Court of Cassation, with Order No. 15558 of June 11, 2025, has provided significant clarification on this matter, offering an interpretation that deserves careful analysis, especially in peculiar work contexts such as healthcare.

The Context of the Ruling: When is the Working Hour Obligation Deemed Fulfilled?

The issue addressed by the Court of Cassation originated from an appeal filed by C. A. V. against C. T. N. R., following a judgment by the Court of Appeal of Bari of July 26, 2019, which had been rejected. The core of the problem lies in the definition of "fulfillment of the working hour obligation" by an employee. Traditionally, one might think that this obligation is fulfilled only through actual work performance. However, jurisprudence has long recognized that there are legitimate causes for the suspension of the obligation to perform work that do not affect the fulfillment of the working hour obligation, such as the enjoyment of holidays or absence due to sickness.

The Supreme Court, with the ruling by President D. A. and Rapporteur P. C., has reiterated and strengthened this principle. Let's examine the reference maxim in detail:

The employee's working hour obligation is fulfilled both in cases of actual performance of the work and in the presence of legitimate causes for the suspension of the obligation to perform it, such as, for example, the enjoyment of holidays or absence due to sickness. (In application of the principle, the S.C. affirmed, in relation to art. 60 of the national collective agreement for private healthcare 2002-2005, that if the nurse does not complete the weekly working hour obligation because they are absent due to sickness, holidays, or leave, the hours worked in the same week under the so-called on-call duty are considered performed in addition to the weekly working hour obligation, without any compensation).

This passage is crucial. The Court of Cassation clarifies that time spent on holidays or sick leave is not "lost time" for the purpose of calculating the weekly working hour obligation. On the contrary, these absences are equated to actual performance. The maxim goes further, applying this principle to the specific case of nurses and the "on-call duty" regime in the private healthcare sector. If a nurse is absent due to sickness, holidays, or leave and does not meet the weekly working hour obligation, the on-call duty hours worked in that same week must be considered as additional work and cannot be used to "compensate" for the hours not worked due to legitimate absence. This means that on-call duty hours must be paid separately, without any deductions or offsets.

"On-Call Duty" and its Peculiarities in the Healthcare Sector

The "on-call duty" regime is a method of work organization particularly widespread in essential sectors like healthcare, where constant service coverage is necessary. It is a period during which the employee, while not on active duty, commits to being reachable and ready to intervene within a short timeframe in case of need. Its regulation is often delegated to National Collective Labor Agreements (CCNLs), such as art. 60 of the CCNL Private Healthcare 2002-2005 referred to by the Court of Cassation.

The Supreme Court's ruling is part of a broader regulatory framework, which includes Legislative Decree of April 8, 2003, No. 66, particularly articles 1, 4, and 6, which govern working hours, breaks, and rest periods. The interpretation provided by the Court of Cassation is fundamental because it prevents periods of rest and health protection, such as holidays and sickness, from being used to minimize the compensation due for on-call duty hours. This strengthens employee protection and ensures that compensation for on-call duty is always additional, regardless of legitimate absences. The implications are clear:

• Holidays and sickness are inalienable rights of the employee.
• These periods cannot be used to "absorb" additional working hours.
• On-call duty, when activated, generates a right to specific and additional remuneration.

Practical Implications of the Ruling for Employees and Employers

Order No. 15558 of 2025 has significant practical implications for both parties in the employment relationship. For employees, particularly those employed in sectors with on-call duty regimes like healthcare, the ruling confirms that legitimate absences cannot prejudice the recognition of additional hours. This ensures greater transparency and fairness in the calculation of remuneration and in the respect of rest and health rights.

For employers, the ruling requires careful and precise management of the calculation of hours worked and remuneration, especially in the presence of on-call duty regimes and absences for holidays or sickness. It is essential that attendance tracking and payroll calculation systems are adequate to incorporate this interpretation, avoiding disputes and ensuring full compliance with current legislation and collective agreements. The ruling serves as a warning for the correct application of rules on working hour obligations and the remuneration of additional services.

Conclusions: A Firm Point for Labor Protection

Order No. 15558 of June 11, 2025, by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for the correct interpretation of the employee's working hour obligation, especially in relation to holidays, sickness, and on-call duty regimes. By reiterating that legitimate absences cannot be used to compensate for additional working hours, the Supreme Court protects the dignity of the employee and the full recognition of services rendered, contributing to strengthening the principles of equity and transparency in labor relations. For a law firm, understanding and applying these principles is essential to offer effective advice and best represent the interests of its clients, whether they are employees or companies.