The right backtracks, the slap in the face to workers has been foiled.

Here's the story of a failed coup. Of a government backtracking and a victory for the opposition and labor rights. I'll have to take it from afar. With ruling no. 63 of 1966 , the Constitutional Court stated that – with regard to outstanding work credits – "the worker's psychological state" can lead him "not to exercise his right for the same reason that often leads him to renounce it, namely, fear of dismissal ." Consequently, the Court declared the constitutional illegitimacy of those articles of the Civil Code that allowed the statute of limitations on the right to remuneration to begin during the employment relationship.

Article 18 of the Workers' Statute (Law 300/70) – as is well known – established for companies with more than 15 employees that the Judge, having determined the unlawfulness of the dismissal, must in any case order the reinstatement of the employee. What does this mean? That, in essence, Article 18 introduced job stability and placed a solid barrier to the blackmail of male and female workers. This is why, at that point, the Court clarified ( rulings 163/69 and 174/72 ) that when there is job stability, the 5-year limitation period can begin, as the worker has sufficient strength to not fear dismissal. It was assumed, in other words, that for employees of large companies the principle of metus (" fear "), which could prevent them from asserting their rights during the employment relationship, no longer applied. This is why, according to our case law, all workers in companies with fewer than 15 employees were able to wait until the employment relationship ended before asserting their right to outstanding wage differences. Until Article 18 of the Workers' Statute was fully effective in Italian law, the Constitutional Court always held that—for companies with more than 15 employees—the statute of limitations on work-related claims, i.e., the time within which a worker can assert their right to outstanding wage differences, already begins to run during the employment relationship, precisely because of that protection.

Since the Fornero Law gave Article 18 a hard blow, reducing the possibility of reinstatement, the Court of Cassation has extended the principle of metus to large companies. This means that, even in these cases, the statute of limitations for work-related claims no longer runs during the employment relationship, when the worker is afraid to assert their rights because they might be fired. Back pay can be requested up to five years after the end of the employment relationship. For example, an employee of a large company has received a performance bonus, but it hasn't been paid. He doesn't dare ask for it because he fears retaliation from his employer, or rather, he fears being fired. Well, case law protects him, allowing him to make the request even after he is no longer an employee of that company and cannot face retaliation. In recent days, the Senate majority attempted a coup against workers, "hiding" it in an amendment to the bill converting Bill No. 1561 (the so-called "ILVA decree" ). It attempted to impose a statute of limitations for large companies, requiring workers to be employed for a period of time, and to send a letter giving workers only 180 days (or six months) to file a lawsuit in court. This meant forcing workers to choose between suing their employer or forgoing their rights in order to maintain a peaceful life.

The amendment also aimed to strip judges of the power to determine the adequacy of wages, as required by Article 36 of the Constitution, which states that " the worker has the right to remuneration proportionate to the quantity and quality of his or her work and, in any case, sufficient to ensure a free and dignified existence for himself or herself and his or her family." The measure sought by the right would have even prevented the payment of outstanding wages even in cases of proven "serious inadequacy," effectively nullifying rulings favorable to the worker. They were attempting yet another blow to labor law, to the detriment of workers, by making it even more difficult to obtain protection for their wages in all cases of wage claims owed by the employer. This was yet another favor to companies that seek to circumvent principles and rulings regarding fair wages for workers. Yet another attack on the judiciary, in open conflict with the rulings of the Supreme Court of Cassation and aimed at limiting the scope of the merits of cases. We managed to stop them. In the Senate, the opposition raised barricades; the Green-Side Alliance presented a suppressive amendment, led by Magni. After the parliamentary battle and the public complaints of recent days, the Brothers of Italy party finally withdrew that wicked amendment. The mobilization worked. The complaints, the pressure, the collective voice: all of this had an impact. They will try again, because this right-wing party hates workers, but above all, it is always prone to pressure from businesses. Well, they will find the same force blocking their path again.

FROM

Marco Grimaldi