Right to strike and limits on employer power: Order no. 29740/2025

The balance between the protection of workers' rights and the freedom of private economic initiative represents one of the most complex issues in Italian labor law. On one hand, Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right to strike as a fundamental right; on the other, Article 41 protects business activity. It is within this delicate framework that the significant ruling of the Court of Cassation, Order no. 29740 of November 11, 2025, is situated, outlining the boundaries within which an employer may act to mitigate the economic damages of a work stoppage without crossing the line into anti-union conduct.

The case: between corporate reorganization and anti-union conduct

The matter brought to the attention of the Supreme Court involved a dispute between employee A. and employer F. The Court of Appeal of Florence had already recognized the anti-union nature of certain organizational measures adopted by the company during a strike. Specifically, the employer had imposed:

• Pre-strike requirements, to be observed under threat of disciplinary sanctions, which limited the employee's freedom to decide until the very last moment whether or not to join the protest.
• Post-strike obligations that effectively forced participating workers to perform work duties without receiving any remuneration.

The Court of Cassation rejected the employer's appeal, confirming the lower court's decision and reiterating the illegality of such obstructive conduct.

The principle of the Court of Cassation and the balancing of powers

The constitutional guarantee of the right to strike does not deprive the employer of their organizational power, nor of the possibility of identifying solutions to limit the material damage resulting from the workers' abstention from work and to minimize the resulting economic losses, provided that the means adopted do not interfere with the exercise of the right itself.

The principle stated above expresses a fundamental rule: the employer is not entirely powerless in the face of a strike. They retain their organizational power (pursuant to Art. 2104 of the Civil Code) and may adopt lawful countermeasures to limit damage to production or facilities. However, this power encounters an insurmountable limit: it cannot translate into a restriction or an obstacle to the effective exercise of the right to strike by workers.

When corporate measures become illegitimate

As highlighted in the commentary on the specific case, imposing mandatory advance notice of strike participation, especially if subject to disciplinary sanctions, alters the spontaneity of the abstention. The worker has the right to decide until the last possible moment whether to stop working. Similarly, requesting unpaid ancillary work duties during or immediately surrounding the strike renders the protest meaningless, constituting anti-union conduct prohibited by Article 28 of the Workers' Statute.

Conclusions: a consolidated orientation for the protection of workers

With Order no. 29740/2025, the Court of Cassation continues in line with its precedents (such as judgment no. 6787 of 2024), reaffirming that the protection of corporate profit can never justify the violation of workers' constitutional rights. Companies must therefore exercise maximum caution when preparing contingency plans during strikes, ensuring that restrictive measures do not turn into undue pressure or forms of unpaid forced labor.