On the subject of layoffs, what are the most critical problems in the current situation?
In periods such as the current one, in which in many productive sectors, the economic situation is not rosy, professionals in this firm are often asked to intervene to assist clients in the activation of collective redundancy procedures for staff reduction, according to the law no. 223/1991, or in procedures which are often in anticipation of redundancies, such as those concerning the extraordinary use of wage supplements provided by the state.
Furthermore, the firm has often intervened in situations in which the problems related to staff reduction procedures converge with those relating to the procedures dictated by the legislative framework of large companies in crisis, supporting customers in negotiations and the conclusion of agreements at the Ministry of Labour in Rome.
In small and medium-sized companies which are widespread in the North East, the crisis situation in which many production sectors are often resolved by resorting to multiple individual dismissals for justified objective reasons, pursuant to article 3 of the law no. 604/1966. The possibility of resorting to this type of redundancy without numerical limits in small companies (which employ a total of no more than 15 employees) or until 4 redundancies are made - where they are required for the same reduction or transformation of activities or work over a period of 120 days in relation to the same production unit or to several production units within the territory of the same province - for companies that employ a total of more than 15 employees, the much lower complexity of this type of dismissal compared to that for the reduction of personnel as per law no. 223/1991, is the most obvious reason for the wide use of this type of dismissal in the context of those situations connected to crisis or corporate restructuring.
Among the topics you deal with, there is also the very current one of contract work. Interim and on-call work, part time, fixed-term contract, project work: how can you orientate yourself from a legal point of view among all these variants? I am thinking, for example, of the pay and social security situation.
The types of contract that you list are very different from each other. In the common parlance, however, they are often brought together by the definition of precarious jobs, a term which is very popular today. First of all, take into account that part-time and fixed-term employment contracts are specific to subordinate employment. The part-time employment contract, moreover, I do not think can even in the abstract qualify as a form of precarious work, being instead very often established indefinitely, even for a shorter period of time compared to normal: but it is normally the worker who requires to use this type of contract at the time of recruitment, or, as a result of changed needs or life necessities, to convert a full-time contract into part-time work. Legislation on the subject, moreover (Legislative Decree No. 61/2000 and Legislative Decree No. 100/2001, Law No. 247/2007) seems to fully protect the worker who establishes such a relationship, moreover, where the relationship is not limited by time and depending on the number of employees employed by the employer, the same rules of protection apply with regard to redundancies typical of full-time employment relationships. The term contract is viewed instead, above all by some unions, with greater suspicion, considering that with the use of this type of contract the employer intends to avoid legislation concerning dismissals. This question could be answered, with data in hand, that instead, the term contract is very often a means by which the worker can more easily get hired and get to be known for the value that they bring. For this reason I do not agree with the limitations on the use of this type of contract introduced with the law no. 247/2007 (the so-called protocol on welfare), to partial modification of the legislative decree no. 368/2001. As for the administration of labour (it was in fact law No. 196/1997, the so-called Treu law, which had introduced temporary work into our legal system, then substituted by Legislative Decree No. 276/2003, the so-called Biagi law which has instead introduced work administered by third parties), I believe that this type of contract has also increased the level of employment of our country. Substantially, the new legislation, as regulated in the legislative decree no.276/2003, provides for the legitimacy of the administration of labour, obviously if operated by authorized parties, with the ability to provide labour also indefinitely, as well as on completion of a contract, as was laid out in the previous legislative provision. However, the law no. 247/2007 has now repealed this type of permanent employment contract, with effect from 1.1.2008. Similarly, the intermittent contract (or zero hours contract) was repealed by law no. 247/2007, again with effect from 1.1.2008, which introduced a new element of rigidity in the labour market by eliminating this type of contract, also provided for the first time by legislative decree no.276/2003, as well as aggravating the problems of those sectors in which this type of work is used profitably (I think, among others, in the catering sector, especially for services rendered by waiters on weekends, although for the tourism and entertainment sector, Law No. 247/2007 provided for the possibility, for collective agreements stipulated by the comparatively most representative trade unions, to identify specific hypotheses of discontinuous work to be carried out on weekends). The contractual agreements so far examined are also subordinate work: only project work contract or program-based work, introduced by the legislative decree no.276/2003 is a true type of self-employment, albeit by contract. Also, in relation to this type of contract, however, the accusation of favouring precariousness seems excessive in many cases. This is because the legislative discipline of project or program work, which has almost completely replaced the previous figure of the coordinated and continuous collaboration contract, on the one hand has made recourse to this contractual form more difficult than coordinated collaboration and continuous contracts, subordinating it to more stringent requirements of form and substance and, secondly, introducing rules of substantial protection (in the determination of compensation, the duration of such contracts, the possible coverage of periods of sickness, etc.) that have certainly made the subjects operating with this type of contract much more protected than those who instead operated with the contracts of coordinated and continuous collaboration.
Precariousness, flexibility, mobility: these are notions that often get confused, especially as regards the methods of termination of employment. What are the differences, from a regulatory point of view?
I think I have basically already answered. The term precarious refers generically to types of contracts, including subordinate work, which have a predetermined duration (fixed-term contract), to be carried out in the form of administration, or to be of an autonomous nature, even if contracts with project and work program, have, from a legislative point of view, less protection in the event of termination of the employment relationship. And it is precisely with reference to this element that it is often believed that the subjects who operate with these contractual forms are more likely to accept forms of flexibility or mobility that would otherwise not be accepted. But, in my opinion, as clarified above, this may only be true in part, given that even the types of contract mentioned above are accompanied by a set of rules that make the protection for those who work with such a contractual form not only a theoretical possibility. On the other hand, a further tightening of the rules of protection in terms of termination of employment also in favour of subjects operating under project and program types of contract, as well as a tightening of these contracts without reason, would only end up making them less attractive (as in part they have already become, due to the increased contributions required as implemented in the last two years), probably condemning so many workers to work relationships without any rules and certainly much less defended than that which today recognizes the Italian legal system.
