COMMENT ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL COURT OF PADUA 18 JULY 2014
It is not uncommon that the theme of the contracts under the labor law, become the subject of significant rulings by the Judges of Labour. In this sense, it is significant the judgment of the 18th
of July 2014 in which the Court of Padua, entered in the area of the limitation period for an appeal of the dismissal related to the action of assessment, time to verify the existence of an employment relationship in relation to a person other than the one with which it was contracted.
of July 2014 in which the Court of Padua, entered in the area of the limitation period for an appeal of the dismissal related to the action of assessment, time to verify the existence of an employment relationship in relation to a person other than the one with which it was contracted.
From an examination of the conclusions reached by the Labor Court of Padua, is emerged as has been granted the exception of a contracting company that had opposed the revocation by also promoted against him by workers applicants not having this last received any appeal court within 60 days after the dismissal, given that the applicants were limited to carrying out an appeal against the contractor.
The dispute began when two workers had appealed the dismissal adopted by the contractor, claiming to have been employed by the contracting authority and, therefore, saying that it was an interposition of illegal labour.
To this end, asked if it were established the ineffectiveness of redundancy with recovery of the report directly employed by the employer contracting with the payment of amounts accrued.
As anticipated, the defense of the contracting authority, was based on the fact that he had not had any appeal by workers out of court within 60 days of expected, given that the decision to withdraw was, as mentioned, ritually appealed only against the contractor.
The Labor Court, accepted the objection raised by the contracting authority, stating that the limitation period runs from the time when the alleged employer interposed announced the dismissal and forfeiture against the contractor is prevented only if the will of appeal is made known to the latter in the rituals 60 days: this is argued on the basis of the provision contained in both article 27 that article 29, paragraph 3-bis of Decrete n. 276/2003 which states that the acts done by the subject interposed (in this case the contractor) are put in place by those who have actually used the services of the workers. Ruling in this way, the judge agreed to a solution quite different from that proposed by the Ministry of Labour with the ruling no. 12 of 25 March 2014 which the Ministry drew the same address, supported by the Supreme Court in its judgment no. 23684/2010 before the law n. 183/2010, according to which the dismissal was considered legally non-existent with the possibility of an appeal is not subject to the limit term In the same ruling, in a subsequent step, and without taking a strong stand, the Ministry of Labour, in the doubtful form (you used the word “seems”) is aware about the different address proposed by the legislature with the law n. 183/2010.
In conclusion, the judgment is used except for revocation of Article 32, paragraph 4, letter d) of Law 183/10 (“Linked job”) extending the time-limit of 60 days for an appeal dismissal and the subsequent period of 180 days for the presentation of the relevant legal action in any other case, including the option provided for in Article 27 of Legislative Decree 276/03, ask the establishment or determination of a relationship work-in-chief to a person other than the holder of the contract.
© are reserved by Studio GF LEGAL STP.
