Disciplinary Dismissal and Unjustified Absence: Commentary on Judgment No. 8956 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 8956 of April 4, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers significant insights regarding the regulation of absences in public employment. In particular, the Court has established important principles concerning disciplinary dismissal for unjustified absences, clarifying the conditions that must exist for such dismissal to be considered lawful.

The Case Addressed by the Court

The case in question concerns a public sector employee, P. V., who was dismissed for unjustified absence pursuant to Article 55-quater, letter b), of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001. The Court examined the fundamental prerequisite for establishing such a violation: the absence must occur on a working day and not a holiday. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the lack of justification for absences on the days immediately preceding and following a holiday is not relevant.

Contracted Public Employment - Disciplinary Dismissal - Unjustified Absence under Art. 55 quater, letter b), Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 - Prerequisite of Absence on a Working Day and Not a Holiday - Existence - Unjustified Absence on the Days Immediately Preceding and Following a Holiday - Irrelevance. In matters of contracted public employment, disciplinary dismissal for unjustified absence as per Article 55-quater, letter b), of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 presupposes that the employee did not report for work, failing to perform the due service, on a working day and not on a holiday, on which they were not obliged to attend. The lack of valid justification for absence from service on the days immediately preceding and following a holiday remains irrelevant.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for personnel management in public employment, as it clearly defines the limits within which a dismissal for unjustified absence can be deemed valid. It is crucial for public administrations to be aware of these provisions to avoid legal disputes and ensure the correct application of regulations. Some key points can be outlined:

• Dismissal for unjustified absence must be based on absences on working days.
• Absences on holidays are not relevant for disciplinary dismissal.
• Justifications for absences on days immediately preceding or following holidays do not affect the lawfulness of the dismissal.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 8956 of 2024 represents an important clarification on matters of public employment and disciplinary dismissal. It not only defines the legal prerequisites for unjustified absences but also offers valuable guidance for public administrations in human resource management. It is therefore essential that employees and employers are informed about current regulations and the implications of judicial decisions in this area.