"The great proletariat has moved”. In recent days a large delegation from CGIL, led by Maurizio Landini crossed the threshold of the Palazzaccio to deposit the four referendum questions which will change - it is said - the history of work in Italy, which has been humiliated and offended for too long with wrong laws on the initiative of all governments not excluding some self-styled centre-left ones. In fact, in the front row in front of the firing squad of the popular vote is that jobs act wanted by the government of the ''supertraitor'' Matteo Renzi. Invoking the Jobs Act is an inverted figure of speech because in figurative language a part is usually indicated for the whole (for example ''the sail'' or the ''bow'' for ''the ship'').
CGIL referendum: Landini against the Jobs Act and increasing protections
Landini, on the other hand, evokes one enabling law and the set of legislative decrees – the block of the jobs act – to indicate only the Legislative Decree no. 23 of 2015 who established the permanent contract with increasing protection: a regulation that does not change, like the n.92 of 2012, the fateful article 18, but introduces a parallel regulation for individual dismissal, applicable only to workers hired starting from 7 March 2015. This new regulation has been considerably weakened by the jurisprudence, including constitutional ones, of some of the most important innovations (such as the predictability of the costs of illegitimate dismissal in relation to length of service, which then translated into the concept of ''increasing protection''). Not enough, however, to escape the curse of the Supreme Guide, lAyatollah Maurizio Landini who from the beginning had judged that article to be a collection of satanic verses.
The four referendums of the CGIL: a redde rationem at the expense of the political forces
Therefore, if the procedures are correct and the CGIL (rest assured) will be able to collect the 500 thousand signatures required, the ''redde rationem'' will be completed in the spring of 2025, on this question and the other three, against the political forces and leaders who, despite being left-wing, have identified with ordoliberalism.
It is absolutely clear that not even a triumph of the NO will restore - stronger and more vigorous than before - thatArticle 18 as provided in the workers' statute. We will have to be satisfied with the confusingly new text in law no. 92/2012. In the same matter another question concerns the measurement of compensation in the event of illegitimate dismissal in small businesses. Laws come into play that the unions have never contested and indeed contributed to their definition at the time: the law n.604/1966 which implemented a union agreement and the Law 108 of 1990.
A further question concerns the safety in procurement and explicitly asks that it widen up responsibility lies with the client of everything that happens regarding the health and safety of workers. To achieve this outcome the question climbs along a network of laws: from the Consolidated Law (Legislative Decree no. 81 of 2008) to the numerous subsequent modifications, surgically intervening on the words in order to reorganize the rule in the direction of a discipline different from the original one, so much so that there is doubt whether the question is suitable for achieving the purpose to which it is addressed.
The referendum on fixed-term contracts
Clearer and more understandable are the effects that would be produced on the relevant discipline if the project were successful referendum on fixed-term contracts which, according to the CGIL, must be reported in a context of "causality". Let's see what the new discipline should be, according to the ''signature'' Confederation, by comparing the two texts.
Article 19 paragraph 1 of Legislative Decree 81/2015 and subsequent amendments (in force):
1 – The employment contract may be subject to a term of no more than twelve months. The contract may have a longer duration, but in any case not exceeding twenty-four months, only in the presence of at least one of the following conditions: a) in the cases provided for by the collective agreements referred to in article 51; b) in the absence of the provisions referred to in letter a), in the collective agreements applied in the company, and in any case by ((31 December 2024)), due to needs of a technical, organizational or production nature identified by the parties; b-bis) in replacement of other workers.
Article 19 paragraph 1 of Legislative Decree 81/2015 and subsequent amendments, in the text possibly modified following the outcome of the referendum in the sense indicated by the questions:
1. A term of duration not exceeding twenty-four months may be added to the subordinate employment contract in the cases provided for by the collective agreements referred to in article 51; and in any case by 31 December 2024, for technical, organizational or production needs identified by the parties.
There do not appear to be any substantial differences such as to justify the use of a referendum. In essence, the entire 24-month period is unified and subjected to the same conditions provided for in the contracts (and therefore also the first 12 months previously liberalized). During the first application phase by 2024 (if and when there is a referendum the law will be lapsed) the so-called causalone is in force, however it can be challenged in court. The replacement of other workers is also brought back to the provisions negotiated in collective agreements. The possibility then appears significant, but also redundant from the union's point of view abrogation of contracts applied in the company. In this case too, the – overestimated – concern about pirated contracts is evident.
Below there are no relevant differences between the text of the current article 19 and that ''desired'' by the CGIL.
In case of stipulation of a contract in the absence of the foreseen conditions, the contract is transformed into permanent contract. Without prejudice to the different provisions of collective agreements, and with the exception of seasonal activities, the duration of fixed-term employment relationships between the same employer and the same worker, as a result of a succession of contracts, concluded for the performance of tasks of the same level and legal category and regardless of the interruption periods between one contract and another, cannot exceed twenty-four months. For the purposes of calculating this period, account is also taken of mission periods involving tasks of the same level and legal category, carried out between the same individuals, in the context of fixed-term work assignments. If the twenty-four month limit is exceeded, as a result of a single contract or a succession of contracts, the contract transforms into a permanent contract from the date of such exceeding.
Without prejudice to what has been established up to now, a further fixed-term contract between the same subjects, of maximum duration of twelve months, can be stipulated at the territorial labor directorate competent for the territory. In case of failure to comply with the described procedure, as well as exceeding the deadline established in the same contract, the same becomes a permanent contract from the date of stipulation.
Referendum on fixed-term contracts: revenge against the Jobs Act?
As can be seen, the real change of pace for temporary work does not lie - as the union propaganda says - in scaling of the phenomenon, which is already decreasing in the face of an expansion of permanent employment, but in the recovery of absolute sovereignty in the hands of the social partners and collective bargaining. Even at the cost of not realizing that you have already recognized the dominance of the situation.
Basically, apart from the desire to take revenge (vile! You kill a dead man!) against the jobs act (i.e. Legislative Decree no. 23/2015) and Matteo Renzi; to no longer favor small companies in terms of dismissal costs; to evaluate whether the client's objective liability really emerges from the cylinder of the question regarding procurement; as far as fixed term work is concerned it is more smoke than beef. Since the signature collection campaign and that which will accompany the possible holding of the referendum will take place under the banner of palingenetic slogans, emerge from the operation political goals which inspire it on the Italian scenario, rather than the desire for regulatory changes that demolish the legislation of recent years, the same which is verbally accused. Even in the unfolding of this story, there is a risk of a war by mistake ending with a classic Pyrrhic victory.
CGIL referendum: the texts of the questions
Layoffs
Jobs act:
«Do you want the repeal of Legislative Decree no. 4 March 2015? 23, containing “Provisions regarding permanent employment contracts with increasing protection, in implementation of law 10 December 2014, n. 183” in its entirety?”.
Measurement of the indemnity:
«Do you want the repeal of article 8 of law 15 July 1966, n. 604, containing “Regulations on individual dismissals”, as replaced by art. 2, paragraph 3, of law 11 May 1990, n. 108, limited to the words: "between one", the words "and a maximum of 6" and the words "The maximum amount of the aforementioned compensation can be increased up to 10 months' salary for the worker with seniority exceeding ten years and up to 14 months' salary for workers with seniority of more than twenty years, if employed by an employer who employs more than fifteen workers."?".
Procurement
“The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to damages resulting from the specific risks inherent in the activity of contracting or subcontracting companies.”?”.
Term contracts
«Do you want the repeal of article 19 of the legislative decree of 15 June 2015, n. 81 containing “Organic discipline of employment contracts and revision of the legislation regarding duties, pursuant to article 1, paragraph 7, of law 10 December 2014, n. 183”, paragraph 1, limited to the words “not exceeding twelve months. The contract may have a longer duration, but in any case", to the words "in the presence of at least one of the following conditions", to the words "in the absence of the provisions referred to in letter a), in the collective agreements applied in the company, and in any case by 31 December 2024, due to technical, organizational and production needs identified by the parties;" and to the words “ba bis)”; paragraph 1-bis, limited to the words "lasting more than twelve months" and the words "from the date of exceeding the twelve month period"; paragraph 4, limited to the words "in case of renewal" and the words "only when the overall term exceeds twelve months"; article 21, paragraph 01, limited to the words "freely in the first twelve months and thereafter,"?".
