Fixed-Term Employment and Replacements: Commentary on Judgment No. 10391 of 2024

Judgment No. 10391 of April 17, 2024, represents an important clarification regarding fixed-term employment contracts, particularly concerning fixed-term hires for replacement needs. This ruling, issued by the Court of Cassation, fits into a complex legal context and offers insights into personnel management within companies.

The Regulatory Context

The regime for fixed-term employees is governed by Legislative Decree No. 368 of 2001. In particular, Article 1 states that a worker can be hired for replacement reasons, but questions arise regarding the necessity of assigning the worker to the same tasks or the same position as the absent employee. The Court, in this ruling, clarified that it is not essential to maintain such constraints, provided that the replacement is functional to the company's needs.

  • The fixed-term worker may not perform the same tasks as the absent worker.
  • The replacement must be justified by business necessity.
  • It is legitimate to replace through chain replacements, as long as there is a correlation between absence and hiring.

Commentary on the Judgment's Headnote

Fixed-term hiring for replacement needs - Assignment to the same tasks or the same position of the absent worker - Necessity - Exclusion - Causal correlation between the activities of the substitute and those of the replaced - Indispensability - Successive replacements through chain replacement - Legitimacy - Limits. In the context of fixed-term employment contracts, under the regime of Article 1 of Legislative Decree No. 368 of 2001, a fixed-term worker hired for replacement reasons for the absent employee may not necessarily be assigned to the same tasks or the same position as the replaced worker, because the replacement must be functional to the company's needs, with the consequence that the entrepreneur - in exercising their organizational power - has the authority to manage the use of personnel, including the fixed-term worker hired for replacement reasons, through internal transfers deemed most appropriate for optimal business performance and, therefore, also through a series of successive replacements via chain replacement, provided, however, that there is a necessity for correlation between absence and fixed-term hiring, with the latter being genuinely determined by the necessity arising in the company due to the former.

This headnote clarifies that the entrepreneur has broad organizational power, being able to manage their human resources flexibly, but it also emphasizes the necessity of a direct link between the worker's absence and the fixed-term hiring. This aspect is crucial to avoid abuses and ensure the protection of workers' rights.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10391 of 2024 offers an important opportunity for reflection for companies and professionals in the sector. It clarifies that, although flexibility in managing fixed-term hires is essential, it is equally important to maintain a correlation between the reason for absence and the need for a replacement. This ruling not only provides operational guidance to companies but also represents a step towards the protection of workers, ensuring that fixed-term contracts do not become a tool for exploitation.

Bianucci Law Firm