In our country, talking with Article 18 of the Workers' Statute (Law 300/1970) is still a taboo. Any proposal to reform the individual dismissal advanced in the past has often been banned and has proved, however, due to ideological conflict even more than dialogue. Sometimes it's like discussing the sex of angels, applies the hint of a dispute will remain unresolved. Some have called the "bulwark in defense of freedom and dignity in the workplace", ignoring the lack of a similar rule in other European countries, however, have a strong law on the protection of the rights workers. On the other hand, the image is perfectly suited as a bulwark of the allegorical figure of that part of workers overprotected by our regulations, the remaining workforce benefits, however, merely a partial protection. Our labor market is characterized by its duality of at least two decades and, moreover, the weight of flexibility has been downloaded especially among the younger generation. The reform of the individual protection against dismissal is one of those elements in our system needs to continue in the modernization of labor law (because, as Winston Churchill used to say, change is not always tantamount to improve, but to improve we need to change) to encourage stabilization of the underwriters of a contract workers 'atypical', thereby redistributing the protections (as happens in the United Kingdom, where the percentage of workers employed for an indefinite period is greater than our country, because of the presence of flexibility in output) ; to support the growth of enterprises, to promote the emergence of undeclared work. The European Commission itself, when in November 2006, the Green Paper (entitled "Modernising Labour Law to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century"), has since come to the damping action to reform the regulation of individual dismissals for economic reasons (the Government Italian then, delay in responding to questions from the Commission argued, however, the lack of "empirical evidence to show unequivocally the existence of a positive correlation between children and constraints on the propensity of firms to take '). The current guidelines
The system of sanctions provided for dismissal without just cause or justifiable reason can be explained in two ways: the obligatory protection and the protection (or establishment) real. The first (ex art. 8 of Law 604/1966) is provided for employers who occupy up to 15 employees (the employer has the right to choose which subject to sanction: restoration of employment or compensation from 2.5 to 6 months), the second (ex art. 18 of Law 300/1970) applies to employers employing more than 15 employees (in this case, in addition to compensation the damage is expected to reinstate the employee in the workplace).
The position of the Constitutional Court
According to the decision No 36/2000, is "inconceivable that the provision in Article 18, as expressive needs explicable to the aforementioned constitutional principles (Articles 4 and 35 of the Constitution, nda), the only possible paradigm concrete implementation of the principles same. Therefore, any repeal of the so-called real protection would only serve to expunge one of the ways to achieve the guarantee of labor law, which is traced in the disciplines that currently apply to both the real protection that the mandatory policy to fund the necessary justification dismissal. Nor, once removed the art. 18 of Law No 300 of 1970, it would lose any protection in respect of unfair dismissal, as would, however, working order, especially in light of the principles can be derived from the European Social Charter, ratified and implemented by Act Feb. 9, 1999, No 30, the protection provided by mandatory law July 15, 1966, No 604, as amended by Act May 11 1990, no 108, where the general trend should be emphasized here. "
Previous attempts to reform
In 2001, the then government headed by Silvio Berlusconi, made a draft law (delegation) which was inserted in the proposed temporary suspension of Article. 18 of the Statute, in particular the right to reintegrate into the workplace in case of unfair dismissal. The bill provided for the temporary replacement of that law with a monetary compensation in relation to particular cases and, of course, this caused the reaction of the CGIL, in response to unfulfilled demands addressed to the Government (ie requests by deleting the section on the idea of \u200b\u200bamending the standard) and the final ratification of the corrections made to Article 18 in March 2002, held a demonstration on 23 of the same month. Following the Executive Board reached an agreement with CISL and UIL, so by signing the Pact for Italy, which contains the possibility of amending Article 18 to "promote regular employment through new experimental measurements - and therefore temporary - have been the objective of encouraging the growth in size of small businesses. " Following the refusal of the CGIL union to sign the agreement and, above all, because the intensification of the conflict, the Government chose to drop the part on changes to the provisions of the Workers' Statute.
The proposed Cazzola, a new attempt to reform
The bill, introduced on the initiative of deputies Giuliano Cazzola and Benedetto Della Vedova, consists of a single article amending paragraph 5 of Article 18 of the Statutes, extending even to the employer failed in court the right to pay compensation for damages equal to fifteen months' total remuneration rather than to initiate the reintegration into the workplace. E 'Without limitation to the nullity of discriminatory dismissals. In practice, it is added to paragraph 5 of Article Of 18 l. 300/1970, as amended, after the words 'total remuneration of fact, "the following sentence:' Notwithstanding the invalidity of discriminatory dismissals under the provisions of Article 4 of Law No 15 July 1966 604, referred to Article 3 of Law No 108 of 1990, is recognized at the employer, losing in court, may pay the employee an indemnity equal to fifteen months' salary in lieu of the fact of global reintegration in the workplace. "
Alessio Maniscalco
0 comments:
Post a Comment