Legitimacy of dismissal justified by precedents.
Precedents are relevant even if they have not been mentioned in the counterclaim.
As is already known, in accordance to clause 2 of Article 7 from legislation 300//70, the employer cannot, with just cause, dismiss their employee without having previously notified them of the disciplinary charges on which the dismissal is established. If the dismissal was due to recidivism from the defaulting worker, the precedents that form this recidivism, which constitutes a fundamental element of the offence, should therefore also be mentioned in the counterclaim previous to the dismissal notice.
However, this precautionary notice is not actually necessary when the dismissal for just cause is based on various specific unfulfillments, whilst the precedents get recalled in the dismissal notice nota as necessary fundamental elements of it, but simple finalised circumstances in appreciation of the adequacy and proportionality of the disciplinary measures: representing only an evaluation criterion for dismissal.
Thus, the recent decree 16/12/2018 no. 30564 of the Supreme Court, following a positioning which is now consolidated (cf. all Court of Cassation. 25/1/2018 no. 1909; Court of Cassation. 15/9/1997 no. 9173). (LC)
