Ultractivity and Contract Modifications: Commentary on Ordinance No. 9136 of 2024

Ordinance No. 9136 of April 5, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, represents an important judicial intervention in the field of labor law and collective contracts. In this ruling, the judges had to address the issue of succession between collective contracts and the detrimental modifications made to workers' rights. We will analyze the implications of this decision, which offers food for thought for both employers and employees.

The Legal Context of Ultractivity

The central issue of this ordinance concerns the principle of ultractivity of collective contracts. Article 2077 of the Civil Code establishes that, in the case of succession between collective contracts, detrimental modifications are permissible only under specific limits. This means that, although a previous contract may be replaced by a new one, the rights already acquired by workers cannot be affected without valid justifications.

Details of the Ordinance and Practical Implications

In this specific case, the Court excluded the violation of Article 2077 of the Civil Code in relation to a company collective agreement. This agreement, while reorganizing the remuneration system and merging some allowances into new payments, respected the wage rights of workers. In particular, the worker's ability to waive individual economic treatments was recognized, provided that they do not pertain to mandatory rights established by law or previous collective contracts.

  • The worker can waive individual economic rights, but only under certain conditions.
  • The provisions of collective contracts operate as heterogeneous sources, influencing individual rights.
  • Detrimental modifications are permissible, but must not infringe upon already acquired rights.
ULTRA-ACTIVITY - SUCCESSION OF CONTRACTS Detrimental modifications of previous provisions - Admissibility - Basis - Company collective agreement modifying previous agreement - Violation of Article 2077 of the Civil Code and the wage rights of the worker - Exclusion - Hypothesis. In the case of succession between collective contracts, detrimental modifications for the worker are permissible with the sole limit of acquired rights, without considering a right deriving from a repealed or replaced collective norm as definitively acquired, since the provisions of collective contracts operate externally as a source of heteronomy competing with the individual source, while maintaining the worker's ability to validly waive individual economic treatment that does not pertain to the application of mandatory provisions established by law or collective contracts, nor to unavailable rights under Article 2113 of the Civil Code. (In the specific case, the Court excluded the violation of Article 2077 of the Civil Code and the wage rights of the worker by a company collective agreement that, while undertaking a comprehensive reorganization of the remuneration system, merged some collective-derived supplementary allowances into two new payments conditioned on service presence, subordinating their recognition, for employees holding a contractual super-minimum as per individual agreement, to the choice of waiving this with an agreement signed under Article 2113, last paragraph, of the Civil Code.)

Conclusions

In summary, Ordinance No. 9136 of 2024 provides an important clarification on the management of contractual modifications in the workplace. The ruling reiterates that, although detrimental modifications are permissible, the rights already acquired by workers must always be protected. This balance is essential to ensure social justice and the protection of workers' rights in a context of continuous regulatory evolution.

Bianucci Law Firm