“From what can be read in the media, not having access to the court documents, it was not technically a dismissal of employees, but a withdrawal from some self-employment contracts, in particular from a coordinated and continuous collaboration contract and a consultancy contract with a VAT number. In this case, we are therefore faced with the application of an institution that is actually general in contractual relationships, which is withdrawal for just cause, i.e., whenever the party that must perform the service is responsible for a breach or an act that does not allow the collaboration to continue. Therefore, Dr. Ilaria Salis, who had maintained these collaborative relationships with these collaborators, believed that either there had been a breach or there had been facts that did not allow this collaboration to continue. For this reason, we are not, I repeat, facing a technical dismissal.”
Read more Italy, disastrous start for Maldini and Leonardo: even Buffon says no | Libero Quotidiano.it
Thus, with Adnkronos/Labitalia, the labor law expert Stefano Bellomo, Professor of Labor Law at Sapienza University of Rome, on the case of the MEP from Avs, condemned by the Court for the ‘withdrawal without just cause’ of two collaborators. Bellomo clarifies that “we are facing a withdrawal” from an employment relationship “but this does not mean that the withdrawing party does not have to precisely prove what the reasons are for not continuing the relationship.”
Ilaria Salis, dismissed and humiliated: “Inadequate for my duties”
Adding insult to injury. After dismissing two collaborators “without just cause” – and for this reason she will have to…
“It is therefore not sufficient to generically deduce, as it seems MEP Salis did in this case, the existence of just cause, but it must be specified either at the time of withdrawal or, even more so, it must be done in court. Therefore, the specific reasons for which she decided to interrupt the collaboration must be explained. Whoever has this power to withdraw must demonstrate that the reasons allowing them to exercise this power existed,” emphasizes the labor law expert. And Bellomo explains that the reasons for a withdrawal for just cause “can basically be two.” “Either a very serious breach, and therefore the fact that whoever was obliged to perform a service performed it in a particularly deficient or negligent manner, or did not perform it at all. Or the existence and commission of behaviors that make the continuation of the collaboration incompatible,” Bellomo emphasizes.
Ilaria Salis disconcerting about the conviction: “The bailiff did not leave me the notification”
And she just can’t accept the verdict that forces her to shell out more than 300,000 euros. Ilaria Sal…
In the specific case of the MEP and her collaborators, the causes for withdrawal “seem to have been formulated in an extremely generic manner, and it was not possible to precisely reconstruct the objective reasons for which this withdrawal was intimated, nor was this reconstruction carried out in court because the client, in this case, the defendant, MEP Salis, remained in default and therefore did not adduce any evidence in the judgment. And for this reason, the existence of any facts justifying the withdrawal was unproven,” reiterates the expert.
Read more Communists are becoming increasingly communist | Libero Quotidiano.it
Ilaria Salis-shock, the draconian clause in the contract: “Do it twice and I’ll fire you”
Further details emerge on the Ilaria Salis case, regarding the conviction for dismissal without just cause of two former collaborators…
As for the conviction in absentia, Bellomo explains that these are “rules belonging to procedural law, not substantive law, but what can be said is that in reality, procedural communications are sent to the defendant’s addresses. They can occur in various ways, such as postal communications with registered mail or with communications certified email (Pec), but they occur at specific addresses, such as, in this case, the defendant’s residence address. The plaintiff acting in court does not have the burden of automatically searching from time to time for a different and specific address where they are sure these communications can be received,” the labor law expert further emphasizes, recalling that “there are legal criteria that identify the defendant’s residence as the place where notifications can be validly made, and if the recipient of the communication does not bother to collect it or become aware of it, they remain in default in the process.”
“This is not an unusual thing; it is an eventuality that can occur and manifest if notifications are regularly made in the places where the law allows them to be addressed. If then the recipient does not bother to check them and does not follow up on these communications, this is not a fault of the one who regularly made the notification, but a failure to observe the burden by the recipient,” Bellomo emphasizes. And regarding the compensation for damages set by the Court of Milan totaling 300,900 euros, Bellomo stresses that “there was a conviction to pay exactly what the collaborators should have received if the collaboration relationship had developed for its entire originally planned duration, thus without the early termination for just cause being considered legitimate. But neither reinstatement nor the liquidation of a lump-sum indemnity was provided, as it was not a dismissal,” he concludes.
Read more To learn how to communicate, the Dems go to lessons from the Duce | Libero Quotidiano.it
