Naples – Having a colleague clock in, or clocking in for someone else, alone is not enough to justify dismissal for just cause if the employee has otherwise performed their duties regularly and has not received any unfair advantages.
This is the principle affirmed by the Naples Labor Court, which, in a ruling handed down on December 10, declared the dismissal of a worker at Ente Autonomo Volturno (EAV), the regional holding company for public transport in Campania, to be unlawful.
The disciplinary action, adopted in December 2024, was triggered after the company accused the employee of improperly using his company badge. According to the prosecution, on at least a dozen occasions the worker had colleagues clock in or clock in for them. This conduct, according to EAV, had irreparably damaged the bond of trust.
The judges, who ordered the worker's reinstatement and compensation for damages, disagreed. In their reasoning, the Court noted that the employee admitted the facts, which occurred in June 2024, but ruled out any fraudulent intent, maintaining that he had always performed his duties regularly. This factor was considered decisive.
According to the panel, EAV itself charged the employee solely with improper use of the badge, without alleging any other violations of service regulations or conduct that would demonstrate intent to deceive. Specifically, it does not appear that the employee falsely claimed non-existent attendance, nor that he obtained undue advantages for himself or others.
Therefore, the judges found that the contested conduct "does not fall within the circumstances" that justify dismissal for just cause. The ruling states that neither the intentional element, nor the illicit advantage, nor the intent to fraudulently alter the attendance record are present. At most, the conduct can be subject to disciplinary action, but not to the point of terminating the employment relationship.
The Court also reiterates a well-established principle: just cause is a legal concept and the judge is not bound by the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, but must assess whether the conduct constitutes a serious breach or violation of the fundamental rules of fairness and civil coexistence.
In the case examined, the improper use of the badge was deemed to be an expression of a lack of diligence, but not such as to compromise the proper functioning of the service or cause concrete damage to the company.
EAV's reaction was harsh, announcing an appeal, openly speaking of "surprise and confusion." According to President Umberto De Gregorio, the decision risks weakening the company's disciplinary power: "If exchanging badges multiple times doesn't constitute a breach of trust," he stated, "how can a company demand compliance with the rules and monitor workplace attendance? This creates chaos."
The agency's lawyer, Marcello D'Aponte, agreed, calling the ruling inconsistent with recent case law. Specifically, he cites a January 2024 ruling by the Court of Cassation, which held that false attestation of attendance by a public employee can, under certain circumstances, constitute the crime of aggravated fraud.
And a further decision in November 2024 deemed lending a badge to a colleague a serious breach of the duties of fairness and good faith, sufficient to justify dismissal for just cause.
This interpretative divide could now be resolved on appeal, in a dispute destined to impact not only the individual case, but more generally the boundaries of disciplinary power in public companies.
Source EDITORIAL TEAM
Choose the social channel you want to subscribe to