Judgment No. 10005 of 2024: Labor Compensation and Prohibited Intermediation

The recent ruling No. 10005 of April 12, 2024, issued by the Court of Appeal of Brescia, provides important clarifications regarding the compensation provided for in Article 39 of Legislative Decree No. 81 of 2015, particularly concerning the issue of the deduction of aliunde perceptum and the prohibited intermediation of labor. The decision is situated within a complex regulatory framework, where the distinction between subordinate work, self-employment, and contracting is crucial for the protection of workers' rights.

The Context of the Judgment

In the specific case, the Court rejected the appeal of B. against M., confirming the interpretation that, in the case of prohibited intermediation of labor, the payment of the compensation referred to in Article 39 should not occur with the deduction of aliunde perceptum. This conclusion is based on two interpretative criteria: the literal hermeneutic and the teleological.

Compensation under Article 39 of Legislative Decree No. 81 of 2015 - Liquidation Criteria - Deduction of aliunde perceptum - Exclusion - Reasons. In the case of prohibited intermediation of labor, the payment of the compensation referred to in Article 39 of Legislative Decree No. 81 of 2015 must be made without deducting aliunde perceptum, applying both the literal hermeneutic criterion, given that the deduction is not provided for by the cited norm, and the teleological criterion, considering the overlap of the formulation of Article 39 with that of the lump-sum compensation referred to in Article 32, paragraph 5, of Law No. 183 of 2010.

Interpretation of the Norm

The literal hermeneutic criterion suggests that, since the norm does not explicitly provide for the deduction, it should not be applied. On the other hand, the teleological criterion highlights the legislator's intent to protect workers from illegitimate intermediation practices. The overlap between Article 39 and Article 32, paragraph 5 of Law No. 183 of 2010, which relates to lump-sum compensation, further strengthens this interpretation, as both provisions aim to ensure fair treatment for workers involved in precarious situations.

Practical Consequences and Conclusions

This judgment has important practical consequences for companies and workers. In particular, businesses must pay attention to the methods of hiring and managing labor, avoiding prohibited intermediation practices, which can lead to not only sanctions but also heavier compensation obligations. Workers, for their part, can benefit from greater protection in the event of disputes related to such practices.

In conclusion, ruling No. 10005 of 2024 represents a significant step towards greater clarity and protection of workers' rights in the context of labor contracting, highlighting the importance of a rigorous application of the existing regulations.

Bianucci Law Firm