Contributo in corso di pubblicazione sulla Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro n. 1/2013.

Once having emphasized the effects on legislation and the hermeneutic implications of the compromise reached by an unusual political majority on the recent reform of disciplinary and economic dismissals, the essay suggests an interpretation of this reform, taking in account the previous regulation  - still in force – of the individual dismissals (L. 604/1966), for which a “giusta causa” (just cause) or a “giustificato motivo” (good reason) are required, as well as the shift of the burden of proof.  It follows  that the  legal formula of “sussistenza del fatto" (existence of  a material fact) -  as a  valid reason for a disciplinary or economic dismissal  - forces to consider, in the specific case,  the existence of the essential elements of those “giusta causa” (just cause) or “giustificato motivo” (good  reason) in order to protect the worker  effectively, both through reinstatement and allowances. However, when the material fact exists but  doesn’t constitute just cause or valid reason, only indemnification will be possible. Based on a systematic interpretation, this conclusion drawn seems to be the only consistent  with the Constitution and it’s supported by argument   “ab absurdo” of  interpretation of law . Consistent with the rules of distribution of the burden of proof,  which are   established by law and jurisprudence,  the burden of proof is charged  to the employer.
The A. argues that no real limits to legislative discretion in regards to an effective protection of worker through reinstatement come from EU Charter of Fundamental rights (art. 30) or from Italian Constitution (art. 4).