Interview with Lawyer Damiana Lesce for La Repubblica – February 21, 2025
On January 12, 2025, Law No. 203 of December 13, 2024, commonly known as the “Collegato Lavoro,” came into effect. It introduces several changes, with the most significant including resignations by conclusive facts, the probationary period in fixed-term contracts, the calculation of temporary agency workers, online conciliation procedures, and mixed contracts.
One month after its implementation, the most relevant issues, due to their immediate practical applications, concern resignations by conclusive facts and the duration of the probationary period in fixed-term contracts.
Resignations by Conclusive Facts
In the event of an employee’s unjustified absence exceeding the period specified by the applicable national collective labor agreement—or, in the absence of such a provision, exceeding fifteen days—the employer must notify the territorial office of the National Labor Inspectorate, which may verify the accuracy of the notification. The employment relationship is considered terminated by the employee’s own will, and the provisions of this article do not apply. However, these provisions do not apply if the employee proves that it was impossible, due to force majeure or an event attributable to the employer, to communicate the reasons justifying their absence.
The new regulation aims to counteract the practice where employees voluntarily abandon their jobs to force their employer into dismissing them, thereby triggering the employer’s obligation to pay severance contributions and allowing the employee to claim unemployment benefits (Naspi). The National Labor Inspectorate addressed this issue in its clarification note No. 579/2025.
Nevertheless, some interpretative and practical doubts remain. The first concerns the deadline after which the employment relationship is considered terminated due to resignation. One interpretation suggests that the collective agreement reference period is the one beyond which termination for dismissal is currently allowed. However, since the law does not explicitly state this, another interpretation suggests that the regulation refers to an explicit deadline set by collective bargaining agreements specifically to govern resignations by conclusive facts. In other words, in the absence of such a provision, it cannot be assumed that the deadline set by collective agreements to deviate from the legal 15-day period automatically coincides with the period established for dismissal. This latter interpretation appears to be more cautious.
Another issue concerns whether the regulation applies in cases where resignations must be validated by law to be effective. For example, a mother or father resigning within the first three years of their child’s life must validate their resignation with the Labor Inspectorate. Although the law does not explicitly differentiate, a cautious interpretation is advisable while awaiting further clarification.
Additionally, questions have arisen about whether an employer is obligated to follow the new procedure in cases of unjustified absence or whether they may choose between this procedure and disciplinary dismissal. Although a clarification would be helpful, there are strong arguments in favor of the procedure being optional rather than mandatory.
From another perspective, the new provision exposes employers to the risk of indefinite claims by employees seeking to prove, as permitted by law, their inability to communicate the reasons for their absence. There is also a risk associated with the findings of labor inspections. In this regard, note No. 579/2025 raises some concerns: while it instructs inspectors to act promptly and complete their investigations within 30 days of receiving the employer’s notification, the scope of the investigation appears broader than what the law stipulates. It extends not only to verifying the historical fact of the absence but also to assessing the possible reasons that may have prevented the employee from reporting it.
The Duration of the Probationary Period in Fixed-Term Contracts
The “Collegato Lavoro” introduces a mathematical criterion for calculating the probationary period. Subject to more favorable collective bargaining provisions, the probationary period is set at one day of actual work for every fifteen calendar days from the start date of employment. However, the probationary period cannot be shorter than two days or exceed:
- Fifteen days for employment contracts lasting six months or less.
- Thirty days for contracts lasting more than six months and less than twelve months.
This provision also raises some interpretative doubts. For instance, the legislator does not specify how to calculate the probationary period for fixed-term contracts lasting twelve months or more. Should the first calculation method apply, setting a maximum of 24 days, or should the second method apply, allowing for a period exceeding 30 days? Additionally, how should the probationary period be determined for replacement contracts with an undefined end date?
Another issue concerns the calculation of the probationary period in part-time vertical contracts, where basing the calculation on calendar days may not accurately reflect the actual days worked.
Finally, there is the issue of referring to collective bargaining agreements and their precedence over the law in cases of “more favorable provisions.” It is not entirely clear whether a probationary period shorter than the statutory limit should always be considered more favorable. A legal dispute could arise if an employee, dismissed for failing the probationary period, argues that their performance was not properly evaluated due to insufficient time.
