Labor reform is coming today in the Council of Ministers, which will give the green light to a general text: "unless agreed", as they say. The formula is used when the rules contained in the measure are not yet definitive and it was probably suggested yesterday to the premier by the President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano. Today the Head of State he tried once again to defuse the controversies linked to the amendments to article 18 by arguing that "the doors will not open to an avalanche of easy dismissals".
In essence, excluding the use of the decree, the reform should arrive in Parliament in the form of enabling law or ordinary bill with some proxies. The compromise of the "subject to agreements" therefore provides that the chambers can modify the text, but at the same time gives Mario Monti the possibility of leaving for China with something concrete in hand. A card that can be spent in front of wealthy oriental investors.
In short, on the one hand the Professor avoids blocking the text, on the other, however, he reiterates together with Minister Fornero that the Government is not willing to back down on the subject of layoffs. A road that does not seem sufficient to calm the waters within the Democratic Partynor to appease the opposition of the trade unions. After the open war declared by the CGIL, the other acronyms (Cisl, Uil and Ugl) also said they wanted to get back to the reform. Among the various changes to Article 18, the most controversial is that relating to dismissals for economic reasons. Let's see in detail what it is:
CHEAP LICENSES
"We will avoid abuses", assured Monti, arguing that "a minimum of attention in drafting the law" will suffice. As presented today, however, the measure has set off alarm among workers' representatives. Who will be fired for economic reasons, in fact, will not have no chance of recovering their job. Even if the judge deems the reason given by the company invalid, he will no longer be able to decide for reinstatement: the only option available for these cases is economic compensation, which will be between 15 and 27 months and will be calculated in based on the size of the company and the seniority of the worker. Until now, the judge could order reinstatement, while compensation was an alternative left to the free choice of the worker.
The fear of the unions is that companies can take advantage of this change to fire personnel for "falsely economic" reasons. The judge is no longer called to evaluate what kind of dismissal it actually is (disciplinary or discriminatory), so even if he blames the companies, he cannot in any case force them to be reinstated. The unions are therefore asking for the application of the German model, which also in the case of economic dismissals provides for the judge the possibility of choosing – in cases where the worker is right – between reinstatement and compensation.
DISCIPLINARY DISMISSALS
First of all, it is good to clarify what is meant by "disciplinary reasons". This category also includes the conduct of those workers who, with Brunetti-like memory, are usually defined as "slackers“. Therefore, not only those who beat their colleagues or steal from the company, but also those who do not fulfill their obligations under their contract.
Until now, the judge's behavior in these cases was identical to that for economic dismissals: neither reinstatement nor compensation if the company is right, reinstatement if the worker is right, who is offered the alternative option of choose compensation.
Instead, the Government proposes that the judge should impose compensation (always between 15 and 27 months), limiting the obligation of reinstatement only to cases in which the fact alleged against the worker has not been committed or falls within the hypotheses envisaged by the Collective agreement. Compensation and the payment of lost contributions are also associated with the recovery of the job. The worker still has the option of requesting reinstatement instead of compensation.
DISCRIMINATORY FIRINGS
Nothing changes on discriminatory dismissals. The rule remains exactly the one already provided for by article 18 of the Workers' Statute: if the worker manages to demonstrate that he has been discriminated against by the company (for religious, political, racial, sexual orientation or other reasons), the judge must annul dismissal and impose reinstatement.
