Rielaborazione di parte della relazione tenuta al Corso di alta formazione organizzato dalla Università del Salento e dal Centro studi Domenico Napoletano, Lecce il  25 maggio 2013.
Di prossima pubblicazione in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro.

In the case of dismissals on disciplinary grounds, the criteria laid down in Law 92/2012 for the purpose of selecting either real protection or that taking the form of an indemnity (the contested fact does not exist and classification of conservative sanction) do not seem to have any intrinsic rationality, nor any exhaustive regulatory value. To overcome the irrational nature that characterises these criteria, two interpretative solutions are put forward. Firstly, it is acknowledged that the criterion based on the “contested fact” referred to in the 4th paragraph of art. 18, cannot be applied, if not in a juridical sense. In this case, no space is left for the application of protection in the form of an indemnity if the fact is found not to exist; hence, with this interpretation, as no parameter is provided to allow a clear distinction to be made from the “other circumstances” envisaged in the following paragraph, the judge is forced to apply reinstatement. On the other hand, the criterion relating to the classification of the unlawful disciplinary measure, also envisaged in the 4th paragraph, may only be used to select the form of protection if interpreted in the opposite way to the positive provision that links real protection to the express classification of a conservative sanction; the legislative formula must therefore be interpreted in the sense that protection in the form of compensation must only be applied if the fact has been classified as falling within the definition of an expulsive sanction (legitimate in abstract). And the difference is not minor; even if there remains some doubt regarding legitimacy from a constitutional point of view.