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

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

The Case Addressed by the Court

The case in question involves a public 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 the configuration of such a violation: the absence must occur on a working day and not on 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.

Contractual public employment - Disciplinary dismissal - Unjustified absence ex Article 55-quater, letter b), Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 - Prerequisite of absence on a working day and not on a holiday - Existence - Unjustified nature of absence on the days immediately preceding and following the holiday - Irrelevance. In the context of contractual public employment, disciplinary dismissal for unjustified absence referred to in Article 55-quater, letter b), of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 presupposes that the worker did not show up for work, omitting the required performance, on a working day and not on a holiday, on which they were not obligated to attend, remaining irrelevant the lack of valid justification for the absence from service on the days immediately preceding and following the holiday.

Implications of the Ruling

This ruling 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 essential for public administrations to be aware of these provisions to avoid legal disputes and ensure proper application of the regulations. Several key points can be outlined:

  • The 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 the days immediately preceding or following holidays do not affect the legitimacy of the dismissal.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ruling No. 8956 of 2024 represents an important clarification in the field 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 managing human resources. It is therefore essential that both workers and employers are informed about current regulations and the implications of judicial decisions in this area.

Bianucci Law Firm