Collective Dismissal: Analysis of Ordinance No. 10197 of 2024

In an ever-evolving work environment, the management of collective dismissal procedures represents a matter of significant importance for both employers and employees. Ordinance No. 10197 of April 16, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides important clarifications regarding the communication of the initiation of the mobility procedure, emphasizing the necessity to specify the professional profiles of surplus staff.

The Need for Specification of Professional Profiles

According to Article 4, paragraph 3, of Law No. 223 of 1991, the communication of the initiation of the mobility procedure cannot be limited to generic indications regarding the categories of surplus staff, such as workers, intermediaries, employees, managers, and executives. The Court has emphasized that such generality is not sufficient to ensure the transparency and correctness of the collective dismissal procedure.

  • The specification of professional profiles allows for effective control of procedural correctness.
  • It promotes greater clarity in planning corporate restructuring.
  • It prevents future disputes, ensuring greater protection for workers.

The Role of the Trade Union Agreement

A crucial aspect that emerged from the ordinance is that the conclusion of a trade union agreement during the consultation procedure cannot remedy the defect of initial communication. In fact, if the agreement itself omits the specification of professional profiles, the procedure is flawed, despite the good faith of the parties involved.

Communication of the initiation of the mobility procedure - Identification of surplus personnel - Specification of professional profiles - Necessity - Indication by categories - Sufficiency - Exclusion - Basis - Sanitation by trade union agreement - Conditions. In the context of collective dismissal for staff reduction, the communication of the initiation of the mobility procedure, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of Law No. 223 of 1991, must specify the "professional profiles of surplus personnel" and cannot be limited to the generic indication of categories of surplus personnel (workers, intermediaries, employees, managers, and executives), as such a generic indication is not sufficient to realize the corporate restructuring plan and to allow timely control over the procedural correctness of the operation carried out by the employer, nor does the subsequent conclusion of a trade union agreement within the consultation procedure remedy the defect of the initial communication if the agreement also omits the specification of the professional profiles of the workers subject to dismissal.

Conclusions

In summary, Ordinance No. 10197 of 2024 represents an important confirmation of the need to follow clear and detailed procedures in the case of collective dismissal. The specification of professional profiles is not merely a formal requirement, but a guarantee of correctness and transparency that protects both the rights of workers and the interests of companies. Failure to observe such requirements can lead to significant legal consequences, necessitating careful reconsideration of personnel management strategies during restructuring phases.

Bianucci Law Firm