Eurofound's ERM database on restructuring-related legal regulations provides
information on regulations in the Member States of the European Union and Norway
which are explicitly or implicitly linked to anticipating and managing change.
Italy: Obligation to consider alternatives to collective dismissals
Phase
Law 23 July 1991, no. 223, Rules on the Wage Guarantee Fund, redundancies, unemployment benefits, enforcement of European directives, job placement, and other labour market provisions;
Law of 28 June 2012, n. 92, Provisions on labor market reform with a view to growth
Native name
Legge 23 luglio 1991, n. 223, Norme in materia di cassa integrazione, mobilità, trattamenti di disoccupazione, attuazione di direttive della Comunità europea, avviamento al lavoro ed altre disposizioni in materia di mercato del lavoro; Legge 28 giugno 2012, n. 92, Disposizioni in materia di riforma del mercato del lavoro in una prospettiva di crescita
Type
Obligation to consider alternatives to collective dismissals
Added to database
08 May 2015
Article
Law n. 223/1991, article 4; law n. 92/2012, article 1
Description
Italian law does not foresee an obligation on behalf of employers to consider alternatives to collective dismissals. However, the mandatory procedure foreseen by law no. 223/1991 aims at fostering dialogue between employers, employee representatives, and public authorities.
According to this procedure, companies with more than 15 employees willing to carry out a collective dismissal (i.e. at least 5 dismissals within 120 days) as a result of the termination of the activity, or the reduction or transformation of the activity or work, need to give prior notice, in writing, to the company employee representatives (Rappresentanze sindacali aziendali, RSA) and to the respective employer associations.
At the request of the company employee representatives and the respective trade unions, within seven days from the receipt of the communication, a joint examination is carried out between the parties, in order to examine the causes that have contributed to determining the surplus of personnel and the possibility of a (even partial) reduction in the number of dismissals, also through solidarity contracts and flexible forms of working time management. Hence, the obligation to preventive communication aims at allowing employee representatives to verify the total or partial inevitability of the dismissals planned by the company.
The joint examination can be concluded with an agreement, through which the parties can provide:
the assignment of workers to different tasks, also in derogation from the prohibition to modify in a worse way the duties of the worker envisaged by the art. 2103 of the civil code;
the temporary posting or command of workers to other companies.
The phase dedicated to the joint examination between the parties must be completed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the communication from the company. After this deadline, the company communicates the results of the consultation and the reasons for any negative outcome to the territory labour Iispectorates (Ispettorati Territoriali del Lavoro).
When the joint examination has given a negative outcome or has not taken place because it was not requested by the trade unions, the territory labour inspectorate has the power to convene the parties for further examination and can formulate proposals for reaching an agreement. This further examination must be completed within 30 days, a term starting from the date of receipt of the communication from the company.
After these two phases, lasting 75 days in total, the employer can proceed with the dismissals even without having reached an agreement.
Commentary
No information available.
Additional metadata
Cost covered by
Employer
Involved actors other than national government
Trade union
Works council
Other
Involvement (others)
Territory and interregional labour inspectorates
Thresholds
Affected employees: 5 Company size: 16 Additional information: No, applicable in all circumstances
This Eurofound research paper explores key trends in restructuring in recent years, highlighting the companies that announced the largest job losses and job gains in the EU. It builds on an analysis of company announcements recorded in Eurofound’s European Restructuring Monitor (ERM), alongside a new classification of restructuring events involving changes in company location.
Employers increasingly use tools such as email, SMS and messaging apps like WhatsApp or Signal to communicate with employees. While these technologies offer both efficiency and convenience, their use in communicating sensitive information, particularly for notifying employees of dismissal, raises legal concerns. This article explores the legal framework on dismissals across the EU, with a special focus on the use of digital means for communicating employment dismissals. Drawing on examples from various Member States, it examines the legal validity of digital dismissals.
In 2023, thousands of workers in big tech lost their jobs. Meta, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Salesforce had been considered to offer good and secure jobs up to this point. Giants of the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, these companies are among the highest paying, with Eurostat data from 2022 indicating that workers in ICT had the second-highest median gross hourly earnings (surpassed only by earnings in the financial sector).[1] These layoffs were a shock, especially as the biggest companies had hired extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened in the two years after this redundancy wave – was that the end of the cuts or did the companies start expanding again?
In 2024, the automotive sector in the EU came to the fore in public and policy discussions. The focus was on the slowdown in electric vehicle (EV) sales, rising global competition, belated investments in new technologies, and the potential closure of production lines in Europe. A number of European car manufacturers and suppliers announced their intention to make large-scale redundancies and change long-standing collective agreements on job security and wages, while workers raised concerns amid demonstrations and industrial action.