Tertiary sector NCBA
The renewal agreement of the NCBA for employees of the Tertiary sector was signed on 22 March 2024, and will remain effective until 31 March 2027. The renewal brings relevant changes to the employee classification system, as well as a one-off lump payment covering the series of salary increases – the first of which to be applied on the April 2024 payroll period. Most relevant changes are summarised here below.
Regulatory section
Effectiveness and duration
On 22 March 2024 CONFCOMMERCIO – Imprese per l’Italia and FILCAMS-CGIL, FISASCAT-CISL and UILTuCS signed the agreement for the renewal of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Tertiary sector, covering the period between April 2023 and March 2027. Amendments of a regulatory nature shall take effect from 1 April 2024.
Effectiveness and scope of application
The agreement extends the scope of application of the NCBA, which from April 2024 will also include:
– dark stores (warehouses dedicated to the preparation of orders placed online) in the food sector,
– commercial distributors of over the counter/non-prescription drugs in the organised retail sector,
– companies that rent and sell audiovisual and software/hardware products,
– operational marketing providers,
– tax assistance centres.
Classification system
The agreement significantly amends the employee classification system, aiming to make it more flexible and dynamic.
Several professional figures have been erased in order to favour more rational professional classification criteria and, at the same time, new figures have been introduced, such as, e.g., the ‘head of training processes’ (level I), the educational organiser (level III), administrative and HR clerks (Level IV) and the data entry agent, who is entrusted with the task of entering data and uploading data streams within an information system (Level V). Several new professional figures of the ICT, auditing and consultancy sectors were also introduced.
Fixed-term contract – Definition of reasons for extensions beyond 12 months (art. 71-bis)
Current regulations determine that fixed-term employment contracts may exceed 12 months (within the limit of 24) in circumstances specifically contemplated by the NCBA. Art. 71-bis of the NCBA allows fixed-term contracts to exceed 12 months in the following scenarios:
a) during end-of-season, winter and summer sales, in compliance with regional regulations,
b) for trade fairs resulting from the national and international trade fair calendar. In this case, the individual contract may be placed in the period between 7 days preceding the fair event and 7 days following its conclusion. The aforementioned calendar may be supplemented by exhibitions, fairs and events identified at territorial level,
c) Christmas and Easter holidays, identified in the period between 15 November and 15 January of the following year, the 15 days preceding Easter and the 15 days following it,
d) reduction of environmental impact, where the worker with a specific professional skill is directly employed in organisational and/or production processes with the aim of reducing their environmental impact,
e) advanced tertiary sector, where the worker is hired to be assigned to specific tasks of (i) design and (ii) implementation, assistance and sale of an innovative product (including digital),
f) digitalisation, when the worker – possessing specific skills – is dedicated to the development of methodologies and new skills in the digital field,
g) new openings. This reason includes the hiring of a fixed-term worker for a maximum period of 24 months starting from the date of the new opening of a production or operating unit, or for a period not exceeding 24 months in the restructuring phase of a production or operating unit,
h) temporary increase, when the term is extended due to a temporary project or assignment lasting more than 12 months.
Local (territorial or company-based) collective bargaining may negotiate further possible reasons for the extension of fixed-term contracts.
‘Elastic’ clauses and variation of work timeframe (art. 95)
The renewal agreement confirms the already existing regulations on elastic clauses, so that the parties may agree on an increase in the number of working hours to be performed by the part-time worker.
It is also provided that the parties may include in the part-time employment contract a special clause by which they may agree on variations in the time of performance in the event of technical, organisational, productive or replacement requirements.
With reference to ordinary working hours whose time allocation is changed in application of said ‘elastic’ clauses, employees are entitled to an increase of 1.5% of the de facto remuneration.
As an alternative to the increases recognised for working hours performed in compliance with lasting elastic clauses or performed in the light of a change in the time of performance, the employer and the employee may agree on an annual allowance of at least €120.00 (not cumulative), paid in monthly instalments; the amount of said allowance shall be increased to at least €155.00 as of 1 January 2025.
Parental leave (art. 198)
On the subject of parental leave, it is provided that the working parent who intends to take advantage of a period of optional leave is required to give at least five days’ notice in writing, instead of the previously required 15 days.
Collective welfare
– EST (art. 104) and Qu.A.S. (art. 105) funds
Starting from April 2025, the compulsory contribution to Fondo EST charged to the employer is increased from €10.00 to €13.00 per month. The compulsory annual contribution to the QuAS fund, payable by the employer for employees with “Quadro” status, is also increased:
– from € 350.00 to € 370.00 effective from January 2025,
– from€ 370.00 to € 390.00 as from January 2026.
Economic section
Salary increases (art. 213 and 216)
The pay increases, which may be absorbed if an explicit absorption clause has been included in the employment contract, will be granted to workers in six separate instalments, as shown below.
| Level | 01/04/2023 | 01/04/2024 | 01/03/2025 | 01/11/2025 | 01/11/2026 | 01/02/2027 | Total |
| Quadro | € 52,09 | € 121,54 | € 52,09 | € 60,77 | € 60,77 | € 69,44 | € 416,67 |
| I | € 46,92 | € 109,48 | € 46,92 | € 54,74 | € 54,74 | € 62,55 | € 375,34 |
| II | € 40,59 | € 94,70 | € 40,59 | € 47,35 | € 47,35 | € 54,11 | € 324,67 |
| III | € 34,69 | € 80,94 |
€ 34,69 | € 40,47 | € 40,47 | € 46,25 | € 277,50 |
| IV | € 30,00 | € 70,00 | € 30,00 | € 35,00 | € 35,00 | € 40,00 | € 240,00 |
| V | € 27,10 | € 63,24 | € 27,10 | € 31,62 | € 31,62 | € 36,14 | € 216,83 |
| VI | € 24,33 | € 56,78 | € 24,33 | € 28,39 | € 28,39 | € 32,45 | € 194,66 |
| VII | € 20,83 | € 48,61 | € 20,83 | € 24,31 | € 24,31 | € 27,78 | € 166,66 |
| Door-to-door salespersons | |||||||
| I | € 28,32 | € 66,08 | € 28,32 | € 33,04 | € 33,04 | € 37,76 | € 226,55 |
| II | € 23,78 | € 55,48 | € 23,78 | € 27,74 | € 27,74 | € 31,70 | € 190,20 |
One-off lump payment (art. 213)
To cover the collective vacancy period, it is established that workers who are in force as of 22 March 2024 (date of signing of the agreement) shall be paid an additional lump sum equal to € 350.00 gross for those classified at level IV, to be proportionally adjusted for the other levels.
The lump sum shall be paid in two separate instalments with the July 2024 and July 2025 payroll periods, as shown below.
| Level | 01/07/2024 | 01/07/2025 |
| Quadro | € 303,81 | € 303,81 |
| I | € 273,67 | € 273,67 |
| II | € 236,73 | € 236,73 |
| III | € 202,34 | € 202,34 |
| IV | € 175,00 | € 175,00 |
| V | € 158,11 | € 158,11 |
| VI | € 141,95 | € 141,95 |
| VII | € 121,53 | € 121,53 |
| Door-to-door salespersons | ||
| I | € 165,20 | € 165,20 |
| II | € 138,69 | € 138,69 |
For apprentices in force as of 22 March 2024, said one-off sum shall be re-proportioned based on the remuneration defined by the previous NCBA of 30 July 2019.
In any event, the amount of the one-off payment due to the worker:
a) shall be determined in proportion to the duration of the employment relationship and the actual service rendered in the period between 1 January 2022 and 31 March 2023,
b) shall be proportionally reduced if, during the aforesaid period, employees (i) are absent or on leave of absence without pay, (ii) are suspended from work or have their working hours reduced pursuant to a trade union agreement, or (iii) are employed part-time,
c) is not useful for the purposes of calculating any collective institution, including TFR.
Any amounts already paid by way of future collective increases or improvements must be considered to all intents and purposes as payment in advance of this one-off lump sum.
Therefore, the amounts paid from 1 January 2022 must be considered absorbed up to the amount of the sum itself.
Facial recognition to detect attendance
The Guarantor Authority for the Protection of Personal Data (GPDP) declared the illegitimacy of the use of facial recognition devices for the sole purpose of detecting the attendance of workers for payroll processing purposes, condemning five companies to pay fines of up to EUR 70,000, for having processed, without a suitable legal basis, the biometric data of a large number of persons.
The ‘facial image’ – being a piece of data that relates to physical characteristics of a person, enabling his or her unambiguous identification – constitutes biometric data within the meaning of Article 4(14) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). For the purposes of lawful processing of biometric data, the same must be necessary for the performance of employer obligations, and always provided that:
(a) the processing is explicitly authorised:
– by EU law, or
– by domestic law, or
– by a provision of a collective labour agreement adopted pursuant to a statutory regulation,
(b) appropriate safeguards are taken to protect the fundamental rights and interests of the worker (Art. 9(2)(b) GDPR).
For the Guarantor authority, data collected by means of a facial recognition device have no place in any provision in our legal system, even if they are used only to record the attendance of workers on duty.
However, the GDPR does not explicitly and categorically exclude this possibility, stating that the processing may be deemed admissible if ‘necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the field of employment and social security and social protection law in so far as it is authorised by Union or Member State law or a collective agreement pursuant to Member State law providing for appropriate safeguards for the fundamental rights and the interests of the data subject’.
Consistent with said statutory provision, it cannot be denied that the holder (employer) was exercising a specific right of its own, which was to ‘uniquely’ detect the presence of employees; however, it is equally undisputed that in the present case the employer had not taken the necessary guarantees to protect the rights of the data subject, since further violations of the rules on the processing of personal data had emerged as a result of the investigation.
In particular, the companies had not:
– provided specific information on the characteristics of the processing of biometric data through facial recognition (Article 13, GDPR),
– carried out an impact assessment (Art. 35, GDPR),
– designated the data controller (Art. 28, GDPR),
– specified the processing of biometric data on the records of processing activities (Art. 30, GDPR).
Also, the circumstance that the manufacturer and supplier of the facial recognition devices issued a declaration and certification of compliance of the biometric device, stating its full compliance with the GDPR, does not however remove the responsibility of the employers that, as data controllers, should have verified the compliance of the processing with the GDPR.
Therefore, the issue here concerns not so much the admissibility of facial recognition for the detection of attendance data, which would ensure that the employer could verify the attendance of workers, without the possibility of errors and/or improper use of company badges (which more or less recent events have highlighted), but the fact that the data controllers did not take the trouble to inform workers of the purposes for which they intended to use the data, the consequences that the storage of such data would entail, and the necessary precautions to be taken in order to preserve them.
In the Guarantor’s view, in compliance with the principles of proportionality and minimisation of data processing, the companies should have used less invasive systems to check the attendance of workers, using, for example, an attendance detection system using special badges.
However, the ‘non-exorbitant’ badge system suggested by the Guarantor:
– while it certainly ensures compliance with the obligation to record attendance pursuant to Art. 39 of Decree-Law No. 112/2008 and is therefore indispensable for the proper drafting of the LUL in accordance with the criteria of ‘objectivity, reliability and accessibility’,
– it is just as undeniable that it does not ensure the unambiguousness of the survey, lending itself – even more so in certain conditions where the physical supervision by the Employer is difficult or impossible – to improper (and liable to disciplinary measures) use by workers.
Termination of employment
By Order No. 2739 of 30 January 2024, Corte di Cassazione stated that, in case of suppression of the duties predominantly performed by an employee, before proceeding with dismissal on objective grounds, the employer is required to:
- asses whether, in the context of the whole of the activities carried out, the residual tasks – i.e. the tasks other than those suppressed – have an objective autonomy such that they can continue to be carried out by the employee. This assessment of appropriateness is left to the employer, who, where there are organisational and productive reasons, may decide to redistribute them among the workers in the office,
- comply with the ‘repêchage’ obligation, i.e. seek any possible alternative measure to dismissal and apply it insofar as possible.
In the case at hand, the employee – who was mainly entrusted with the duties of switchboard operator and, at the same time, with further residual tasks of call sorting – had been dismissed due to the suppression of her duties as switchboard operator caused by the introduction of an automatic phone answering system.
According to the Court, in order for the termination of the employment relationship to be lawful, it is not necessary that all the duties attributed to the employee be suppressed, ‘in the sense of their absolute and definitive elimination (…) given that the residual duties may be differently distributed among the employees in the office’.
However, the Supreme Court specified that before dismissing the employee, the employer is required to:
- assess the possibility of assigning said employee to the performance of the residual duties only, possibly resorting to a part-time employment contract
- verify that no position is available in the company’s organisational chart in which the employee can be redeployed, even for the performance of duties belonging to a lower classification level but falling within the same legal category.