[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.26.0″ _module_preset=”default” da_disable_devices=”off|off|off” global_colors_info=”{}” da_is_popup=”off” da_exit_intent=”off” da_has_close=”on” da_alt_close=”off” da_dark_close=”off” da_not_modal=”on” da_is_singular=”off” da_with_loader=”off” da_has_shadow=”on”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.26.0″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.26.0″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_video src=”https:\/\/vimeo.com\/1154621692?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci” src_webm=”https:\/\/vimeo.com\/1154621692?share=copy&fl=sv&fe=ci” image_src=”https:\/\/arlatighislandi.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/arlati-copertina-AGpills_Sitoweb.jpg” _builder_version=”4.26.0″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″][\/et_pb_video][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Giovanna Caivano<\/i><\/p>\n
The new pill of Labour Consultancy is dedicated to “Resignation by implicit conduct” by Giovanna Caivano – Team Manager for International Projects.
\nLaw No. 203\/2024, in force since January 2025, regulates cases of resignation by conclusive conduct arising from prolonged unjustified absence from work.
\nUnder Article 19: if the absence exceeds the period provided by the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, or in the absence of contractual rules, more than 15 days, the employer may notify the National Labour Inspectorate, which will assess the accuracy of the notification. A positive outcome results in the termination of the employment relationship by implied will of the employee.<\/p>\n
The most controversial issue concerns the calculation of the relevant time limits.
\n
Recent case law has adopted divergent approaches:
\n
1) the Bergamo Court excluded the application of disciplinary dismissal time limits set by Collective Bargaining Agreements (In line with the Ministry\u2019s interpretation);
\n
2) the Milan Court, on the contrary, held that the contractual time limit prevails, even if shorter than the statutory 15 days.<\/p>\n
These opposing rulings confirm that the legal framework remains uncertain, pending either a consolidated judicial approach or further legislative clarification.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":13155,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"