Social security and collective bargaining agreements: clarifications from the Court of Cassation in Order no. 28976/2025

The complex landscape of Italian labor law often presents interpretive issues of significant practical relevance, especially regarding supplementary pension schemes and industry-specific funds. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Order no. 28976 of November 3, 2025, has provided further clarity on the requirements for enrollment in the Fiorenzo Casella National Pension Fund for daily newspaper workers. The decision offers an important point of reflection on the relationship between collective bargaining and the actual social security classification of employees.

The case and the Supreme Court's decision

The dispute involved the employee R., represented by D. C. P., and the counterparty F. The Court of Appeal of Milan had previously rejected the employee's appeal, and the Court of Cassation upheld this position, focusing on the interpretation of Article 10 of the Fiorenzo Casella Fund regulations. The core of the issue lies in determining who is effectively entitled to enrollment in this specific pension fund, moving beyond restrictive interpretations based solely on the nature of the company's business activity.

The point of contention: the application of the collective bargaining agreement

To fully understand the scope of this decision, it is essential to analyze the legal principle expressed by the judges of the Court of Cassation:

Pursuant to Art. 10 of the relevant regulations, blue-collar and white-collar workers whose employment relationship is governed by the national industry-specific collective bargaining agreement are enrolled in the Fiorenzo Casella National Pension Fund for daily newspaper workers, regardless of whether the employer is a press agency and whether the employee is directly engaged in journalistic activities, as commercial and instrumental activities related to news production may also be relevant for this purpose.

This principle clarifies a key tenet: the determining factor for enrollment in the Fund is not the specific activity performed by the employer (for example, whether or not it is a press agency), nor the strictly journalistic nature of the employee's duties. What matters, decisively, is the application of the national industry-specific collective bargaining agreement (CCNL).

Practical consequences for employees and companies

The Court of Cassation's ruling emphasizes collective autonomy and the rules of contractual interpretation established by Art. 1362 of the Civil Code. Instrumental and commercial activities, if governed by the industry-specific agreement for daily newspapers, grant access to the Fund's social security protections. Below are the key points emerging from the judgment:

• Centrality of the CCNL: It is the applied collective agreement that determines access to supplementary social security protections, not the company's product classification.
• Inclusion of instrumental activities: Even those involved in commercial aspects or support for news production are entitled to enrollment.
• Overcoming the journalistic requirement: It is not necessary to be a journalist to benefit from the Casella Fund, provided that one is a white-collar or blue-collar worker under the industry-specific agreement.

Conclusions

With Order no. 28976/2025, the Supreme Court reaffirms a principle of fairness and legal certainty, preventing subtle operational distinctions from excluding workers from the social security protections to which they are entitled. For companies in the publishing sector and their employees, this decision serves as a clear guide for the proper management of supplementary contribution positions, confirming that collective bargaining remains the fundamental compass in labor relations.