Naples Court Confirms EAV Employee's Dismissal Is Legitimate

The ruling issued on December 9th by the Labor Section of the Court of Naples definitively closes the case of the former employee working at the EAV station in Pompei. The judge rejected the man's appeal and confirmed the full legitimacy of the dismissal order, acknowledging the seriousness of the alleged conduct: from the sale of counterfeit travel tickets to the manipulation of company equipment, to the entry of unauthorized persons into the ticket office. This reconstruction coincides with the documentation of the defensive investigations initiated by the company, also conducted through investigative agencies.

The court ruling recognized the evidence gathered by EAV as fully usable, having been deemed necessary to establish conduct that damaged the company's assets. The company expressed satisfaction with a ruling that, in its view, unequivocally certifies the correctness of the approach taken to address isolated incidents capable of undermining the image of the public service and user trust.

According to EAV, the value of the ruling goes beyond individual sanctions: the Court reaffirmed the legitimacy of the monitoring tools adopted to prevent abuse and protect not only public resources but also the majority of workers who perform professionally. This position was reiterated by President Umberto De Gregorio, who spoke of confirmation of the firm's rigorous approach and promised constant vigilance to protect public transport in Campania.

The company's legal team also expressed satisfaction. Professor Marcello D'Aponte, who represented EAV in the case, emphasized that the Court clarified the nature and legitimacy of the defensive investigations, validating the investigative evidence and the disciplinary procedure followed. The ruling, he noted, reaffirms essential principles of labor law: the employer may resort to targeted investigations when potentially fraudulent or criminally relevant conduct is involved, and the investigator's testimony, if consistent with the evidentiary basis, constitutes valid evidence. This conclusion closes the door on the former employee's defense arguments, which were deemed specious and insufficient to refute the seriousness of the alleged facts.