What we have until now provisionally called "Connected job" now has its final name and a serial number because the project was signed into law: The law 183/10, which will be published in Ordinary Supplement 243 to the "Official Gazette" 262 Today November 9, 2010 and, therefore, should enter into force on 24 November.
Many of you will remember that this law has had its first life in March this year when, at the parliamentary term was sent to the President for signature. Napolitano, however, the exercise of its powers, the text has returned to the Chambers with some annotations considered a part of the same discordant with the constitutional principles. Giorgio Napolitano in particular observed that the rules on arbitration to exclude the constitutionally guaranteed right of every citizen to apply to the ordinary courts for the protection of rights.
At that time, as Democrats and as Retelegale.net Jurists have given rise to numerous initiatives to raise awareness and we recorded the refusal of the Head of State as a victory, however temporary.
Following that re-entering the text in the legislative process, the chambers have introduced significant changes to the part that the President had clearly branded as unconstitutional in the odor of. The rest of the standard has remained virtually identical.
However, as we already said in comments published during the parliamentary debate on the first draft of Linked Labor, the catastrophe that this law introduces two and not one. The first disaster was the introduction of Arbitration as a method of resolving disputes concerning labor law and the second disaster is the reform of limitation for the action resulting in the extinction of labor relations.
We must say that the first disaster was averted, while the second is not.
Let's see in detail what has changed between the first and the second draft of the standard.
On the subject of arbitration:
In the first draft was changed art. 410 of the Code of Civil Procedure eliminating the compulsory conciliation at the local Labour making it optional. Is introduced, then the possibility for the worker and the employer to use, rather than an employment tribunal and then to the Court, an arbitration panel of mysterious composition, the prime task to decide on a fair and even then not by the law, all types of dispute that had arisen between the parties. Is introduced, then subtly a "possibility" for the parties to provide direct employment contract, and then at the time of the obligation to contact the referees and not for the Court in case of disputes. That possibility, in fact, would be resolved in a favorable opportunity for employers and a requirement for workers who, forced by the need to work together with payment, nothing could oppose giving up forever to the protection provided by law and guarantees of a trial before an employment tribunal.
In the final version of 183/10, namely art. 31, for the truth, this evil will disappear and the arbitration itself as a possibility in tutto e per tutto e mai come un obbligo.
Resta la facoltatività del tentativo di conciliazione che, tuttavia, da semplice tavolo di funzionari che tentano di avvicinare le posizioni delle parti, si trasforma in un vero e proprio collegio con l'obbligo, al termine della discussione, di formulare una ipotesi transattiva il cui mancato accoglimento da parte di una delle parti dovrà essere valutato dal Giudice ai fini della decisione, ad esempio, in punto di attribuzione delle spese legali.
Ma, come visto, la novità positiva è che del tentativo di conciliazione possiamo molto volentieri fare a meno anche perché questo istituto, che fa perdere 60 giorni di tempo a chi agisce, in questi anni è servito principalmente to employers to get discounts in cases relating to the payment of wages due and unpaid. The worker is often heard to propose at that meeting, a figure much lower than what is actually owed by the employer and found himself in a position to accept in view of the abnormal length of trials and dell'alea formed mostly from possibility that, in the meantime, the former employer went bankrupt or became insolvent, however, undermining the prosecution.
As to the possibility of introducing the arbitration clause, which is nothing if not the agreement under which the parties referred to arbitration the dispute directly in the work contract, as stated above, this, in the final version, it disappears. Not only that: it is prohibited, as it is forbidden to conclude the pact by which to choose to allocate to private arbitrators jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to employment, before the end of the trial period to avoid, however, that the worker are in a state of awe and helplessness in fornt the request of the employer. Not only that the referral to arbitration is never allowed to appeal the dismissal of the action.
As you can see we are in a context radically different from that which drew the first version of the reform ruled out by the Head of Stato.
Adesso è compito nostro e di chiunque abbia a cuore la tutela dei diritti dei lavoratori divulgare il più possibile il suggerimento di rifiutarsi sempre e comunque di sottoscrivere accordi che limitino la giurisdizione del Giudice del Lavoro e la scagura è definitivamente scampata.
In tema di termini di decadenza per l'azione conseguente all'estinzione dei rapporti di lavoro.
E' l'art. 32 della 183/10 ad occuparsi di questo tema. Non esiste alcuna differenza tra la prima e la seconda stesura della norma. Essendo la questione molto delicata procedo ad analizzare punto per punto facendo seguire ad ognuno una breve e schematica spiegazione.
" Article 32.
(Forfeiture and provisions on fixed-term employment contract)
1. The first and second paragraphs of Article 6 of Law July 15, 1966, No 604, are replaced by the following:
"The dismissal must be challenged under penalty of forfeiture within sixty days after receipt of a notice in writing, or communication, also in writing, of the reasons, if not simultaneously, with any written document, including the courts, such as to make known the will of the worker through the direct intervention of the union to challenge the dismissal.
1. The first and second paragraphs of Article 6 of Law July 15, 1966, No 604, are replaced by the following:
"The dismissal must be challenged under penalty of forfeiture within sixty days after receipt of a notice in writing, or communication, also in writing, of the reasons, if not simultaneously, with any written document, including the courts, such as to make known the will of the worker through the direct intervention of the union to challenge the dismissal.
The appeal is ineffective unless it is followed by the next term of two hundred seventy days from filing the appeal in the clerk of the court on the basis of an employment tribunal or by notifying the other party's request for conciliation or arbitration, subject to the possibility of producing new documents formed after the filing of the appeal.
If conciliation or arbitration required to be withheld or not reached the necessary agreement to its completion, the application should be submitted to the court under penalty of forfeiture within sixty days from the refusal or failure to agree. "
If conciliation or arbitration required to be withheld or not reached the necessary agreement to its completion, the application should be submitted to the court under penalty of forfeiture within sixty days from the refusal or failure to agree. "
So far, one might say, so good in the sense that in addition to the 60-day period, that already existed, even out of court for challenging (and therefore with a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt and only one) that the dismissal is considered unfair and led into a second term, 270 days (about nine months) for filing the appeal with the Court. Not a problem. Just know this, and frankly I do not think there are many cases in which the deposit is made after a couple of months. In fact, this is the new standard, just to be careful. None upheaval. Of course if you want to involve the local Labour experiment with an estimate of conciliation (not recommended), then the terms and then be suspended from any ridecorrere not be reconciled.
" 2. The provisions of Article 6 of Law July 15, 1966, No 604, as amended by paragraph 1 of this Article shall also apply to all cases of invalidity of the dismissal. "
Here are the first mournful notes. What does this affect? What need is there to put it? Certainly it means that these terms are applicable to dismissal for cause, good reason for a justified objective and subjective reasons invalid, but then what? What other types of disability dismissal? For example: we know that the dismissal, by law, must be given notice in writing that if oral notice is about a type of withdrawal invalid. Up this reform there was no limitation period because the 60 days. beginning from the date of receipt of notice that in the absence of this do not run anything. But now? Could it be that this generic term also includes layoffs intimati orally? Because in that case would be very difficult to prove the date on which the withdrawal occurs and then show that the action was carried out within the terms established by law. An example is an employment wholly or partly irregular and difficult to obtain the cooperation of colleagues. I think this is a difficult problem and wait for the Supreme Court has made in terms of giving the correct interpretazione alla norma sperando che questa vada nel senso di escludere l'applicabilità della stessa al caso del licenziamento intimato oralmente data la inesistenza giuridica di tale atto e non la sua semplice nullità.
Here are the first mournful notes. What does this affect? What need is there to put it? Certainly it means that these terms are applicable to dismissal for cause, good reason for a justified objective and subjective reasons invalid, but then what? What other types of disability dismissal? For example: we know that the dismissal, by law, must be given notice in writing that if oral notice is about a type of withdrawal invalid. Up this reform there was no limitation period because the 60 days. beginning from the date of receipt of notice that in the absence of this do not run anything. But now? Could it be that this generic term also includes layoffs intimati orally? Because in that case would be very difficult to prove the date on which the withdrawal occurs and then show that the action was carried out within the terms established by law. An example is an employment wholly or partly irregular and difficult to obtain the cooperation of colleagues. I think this is a difficult problem and wait for the Supreme Court has made in terms of giving the correct interpretazione alla norma sperando che questa vada nel senso di escludere l'applicabilità della stessa al caso del licenziamento intimato oralmente data la inesistenza giuridica di tale atto e non la sua semplice nullità.
“ 3. Le disposizioni di cui all'articolo 6 della legge 15 luglio 1966, n. 604, come modificato dal comma 1 del presente articolo, si applicano inoltre:
a) ai licenziamenti che presuppongono la risoluzione di questioni relative alla qualificazione del rapporto di lavoro ovvero alla legittimità del termine apposto al contratto;
b) al recesso del committente nei rapporti di collaborazione coordinata e continuativa, anche nella modalità a progetto, di cui all'articolo 409, numero 3), del codice di procedura civile;
c) al trasferimento ai sensi dell'articolo 2103 del codice civile, con termine decorrente dalla data di ricezione della comunicazione di trasferimento;
b) al recesso del committente nei rapporti di collaborazione coordinata e continuativa, anche nella modalità a progetto, di cui all'articolo 409, numero 3), del codice di procedura civile;
c) al trasferimento ai sensi dell'articolo 2103 del codice civile, con termine decorrente dalla data di ricezione della comunicazione di trasferimento;
d) all'azione di nullità del termine apposto al contratto di lavoro, ai sensi degli articoli 1, 2 e 4 del decreto legislativo 6 settembre 2001, n. 368, e successive modificazioni, con termine decorrente dalla scadenza del medesimo.”
Ecco il nucleo fondamentale e allo stesso tempo la parte più pericolosa della riforma.
Il termine di decadenza di 60 giorni per l'impugnazione e di 270 giorni per il deposito del ricorso non si applica più solo ai licenziamenti ma anche alle domande avente ad oggetto l'accertamento della natura subordinata del rapporto di lavoro, e quindi alla conversione dei contratti precari (a termine a progetto, etc,) in contratti stabili e ai trasferimenti illegittimi. Si introduce, cioè, un termine ultimo oltre il quale si perde il diritto di agire per la tutela dei propri diritti in un ambito nel quale, come è noto, non si è immediatamente nelle condizioni di poter sapere se il rapporto di lavoro si stabilizzerà o meno. In molti casi, infatti, a seguito di una iniziale costituzione di un rapporto di lavoro parasubordinato (che quasi sempre simula un rapporto subordinato e quindi è convertibile) si viene assunti con contratto completed (almost certainly valid and non-convertible) with the promise by the employer of a future stabilization. But, and here lies the problem, if the loop end of the contract 60 days after the worker is in a difficult situation to choose between sending registered in the constancy of the employment relationship, compromising the ability to see naturally stabilized the relationship, or give up 'action in establishing trusting that, as often happens, may not materialize. What is certain is that the precarious skin changes, turns and, in some respects, it is institutionalized. The transformation of the precarious contract void the contract becomes subject to an action with a dead-line, as they say gli aziendalisti, con un termine di decadenza esattamente come l'impugnazione di un licenziamento con una equiparazione che stabilisce la cronicità dell'uso improprio, o per meglio dire dell'abuso, dei contratti a progetto e di quelli a termine al punto da dover ricorrere ad un sistema di smaltimento dei ricorsi in nome della certezza dei diritti.
“ 4. Le disposizioni di cui all'articolo 6 della legge 15 luglio 1966, n. 604, come modificato dal comma 1 del presente articolo, si applicano anche:
a) ai contratti di lavoro a termine stipulati ai sensi degli articoli 1, 2 e 4 del decreto legislativo 6 settembre 2001, n. 368, in corso di esecuzione alla data di entrata into force of this Act, with effect from the expiry of the period;
b) contracts for the work completed, stipulated in the application of the law that existed prior to September 6, 2001 Legislative Decree No 368, and completed prior to the entry into force of this Act, with effect from that date of entry into force of this Act, this Act with effect from that date of entry into force of this Act;
c) the sale of contract of employment took place in accordance with Article 2112 of the Civil Code by the end of the date of transfer;
c) the sale of contract of employment took place in accordance with Article 2112 of the Civil Code by the end of the date of transfer;
d) in any other case, including the option provided for in Article 27 of Legislative Decree 10 September 2003, No 276, it requests the establishment or determination of an employment relationship in the hands of someone other than the contract holder. "
careful attention. E 'should be given maximum publicity to this rule because it introduces a precise limitation period for those contracts that have been extinct before the entry into force of the law in question. month period commencing from the date of entry into force of 183/10 and, therefore, from 24 November 2010 and therefore the deadline for challenging the contracts, if we have miscalculated, is January 23 . This rule will impact greatly on the Stabilization preventing in many precarious to exercise its rights because the press and most of the debates on the content of this rule have focused on arbitration without showing how, in reality this was just the worst reform.
" 5. In cases of conversion of fixed-term contract, the court condemns the employer to pay the worker by providing comprehensive compensation by between a minimum of 2.5 and a maximum of 12 months of the last total remuneration of fact, taken into account the criteria set out in Article 8 of Law July 15, 1966, No 604.
6. In the presence of national contracts or collective agreements, territorial or company agreements with trade unions comparatively representative at national level, involving the recruitment, even for an unlimited period of workers already employed under fixed term contracts within specific classifications, the maximum amount of compensation fixed by paragraph 5 is reduced by half.
6. In the presence of national contracts or collective agreements, territorial or company agreements with trade unions comparatively representative at national level, involving the recruitment, even for an unlimited period of workers already employed under fixed term contracts within specific classifications, the maximum amount of compensation fixed by paragraph 5 is reduced by half.
7. The provisions in paragraphs 5 and 6 apply to all judgments, including those pending at the date of entry into force of this Act. With reference to these recent reviews, where necessary, for the purpose of determining the compensation referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6, the judge sets a deadline for the parties to the eventual integration of the application e delle relative eccezioni ed esercita i poteri istruttori ai sensi dell'articolo 421 del codice di procedura civile.”
Questi ultimi tre punti mettono un tetto al risarcimento del danno che il lavoratore può richiedere in caso di trasformazione del contratto a termine con l'aggravante di introdurre tale limite anche per le cause già in corso. Ancora sconti e sempre da una sola parte.
Al termine di questa disamina, che spero sia utile, vorrei svolgere una breve considerazione. Ancora una volta ci troviamo di fronte ad un attacco nei confronti dei diritti dei lavoratori. Non c'è dubbio. Ancora una volta si alleggeriscono le responsabilità di coloro che sfruttano temporary employment to increase profits for their companies. In recent months, with regard to this reform I have heard much in error cancellation art. 18 and I found the lack of a detailed analysis on that, unfortunately, now determines the clearance of a principle, as described by art. 32 above, which undoubtedly worsened the precarious condition of workers but does not touch even far away from the plight of the workers called guaranteed nor the applicability of these and only these, art. 18 St. Lav.
Once again, therefore we are to consider a bill whose principals are entrepreneurs, industrialists, employers. I wonder, when we 'll analyze a text for a reform of the workers coming from? What is left to the design of labor law? What are the reforms that are deemed urgent and necessary to restore dignity to work and what the overall design within which these reforms can be said to be credible?
I think if we do not answer this second question we will not be able to respond to the first. I have a feeling that the season should end the defense for a season to make way for concrete proposals, real turnaround, contamination of the debate with proposals for reform in favor of workers, to pay for and against the further use of precarious forms of employment. Otherwise reforms such as this will be only small samples, trials of reforms by the devastating social point of view. There can be a better Italy without an overall plan for the rights of workers, however, would be much more harmonious than the current legal framework and constitutional provisions, therefore, certainly legitimate.
Marco Guercio
Lawyer
0 comments:
Post a Comment