Termination for justified objective reason: commentary on Ordinance No. 10627 of 2024

On April 19, 2024, the Court of Cassation issued Ordinance No. 10627, which addresses crucial issues regarding termination for justified objective reason. In particular, the ruling focuses on the obligation of repêchage and the fungibility of tasks within the context of the employment relationship. This article aims to analyze the key points of the decision and the implications for employers and employees.

The regulatory context of termination for justified objective reason

Termination for justified objective reason is governed by Law No. 604 of July 15, 1966, which establishes the criteria for the legitimacy of such measures. Article 2103 of the Civil Code, recently amended, introduces important clarifications regarding the obligation of repêchage. However, the Court of Cassation, with its recent ordinance, states that the obligation of repêchage applies only in the case of fungible tasks, excluding the need for the employer to organize training courses for the professional retraining of dismissed employees.

The importance of task fungibility

The Court emphasizes that the obligation of repêchage cannot be extended to tasks that cannot be concretely assigned to the worker. This implies that, in the case of a dismissal, it is essential that the available tasks within the company are compatible with the employee's abilities and skills. If such tasks are not fungible, the employer is not obliged to provide further training or retraining opportunities. This clarification is crucial to avoid misunderstandings regarding the employer's responsibilities in situations of corporate crisis.

Obligation of repêchage - Fungibility of tasks - Necessity - Amendment of art. 2103 c.c. - Irrelevance. In the matter of termination for justified objective reason, the obligation of repêchage operates exclusively within the realm of fungible tasks, concretely assignable to the worker, and there is no obligation on the employer to organize training courses for the retraining of the dismissed worker's professional skills, even under the amended art. 2103 c.c.

Conclusions

In summary, Ordinance No. 10627 of 2024 from the Court of Cassation provides an important clarification regarding the application of the obligation of repêchage in the context of termination for justified objective reason. The ruling highlights that the fungibility of tasks is a fundamental criterion for determining the employer's responsibilities, excluding the obligation for training for professional retraining. This interpretation could have a significant impact on employment dynamics, placing workers in a position of greater vulnerability in the event of dismissal. Therefore, it is essential for both parties, employers and employees, to be aware of the legal and practical implications of this decision.

Bianucci Law Firm