By the Labour Law Department
Extracurricular traineeships: when training gives way to subordinate employment
With judgment no. 3687 of 15 October 2025, the Court of Catania (Labour Section) revisited the often delicate boundary between extracurricular traineeships and subordinate employment. The decision aligns with an increasingly strict line of case law requiring a substantive, rather than merely formal, assessment of the lawfulness of traineeships.
The Court reaffirmed that the cause of a traineeship is entirely educational. The activity performed by the trainee can be relevant only if instrumental to learning and must never become the primary object of the relationship. Where the training function is exhausted prematurely and the trainee is stably integrated into the company’s organization, performing operational tasks under fixed working hours and subject to managerial control, the relationship is liable to be reclassified as subordinate employment.
Of particular interest to employers is the principle concerning the burden of proof. Once the trainee alleges a lack of training, the company must demonstrate the actual, continuous, and predominant nature of the training activity. Neither the individual training plan nor the merely “nominal” presence of a tutor is sufficient in itself if it does not translate into a real and verifiable training pathway over time.
The consequences of reclassification are well known. They include recognition of the correct contractual classification, payment of salary differentials, and full regularization of social security contributions. The judgment therefore serves as a clear warning against using traineeships to cover ordinary production needs or peaks in activity.
Adequate remuneration and “unnatural” collective agreements: the court must compare economic treatments
With judgment no. 32123 of 10 December 2025, the Court of Cassation addressed the issue of adequate remuneration under Article 36 of the Italian Constitution where an “unnatural” collective bargaining agreement is applied in relation to the work actually performed.
The principle established has significant practical implications. Even when an employer applies a formally legitimate collective agreement under collective autonomy and freedom of association, the court must nonetheless verify that remuneration is proportionate and sufficient, considering not only the quantity but also the quality of the work performed.
To this end, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the judge may—and must—carry out a parametric comparison between the economic treatment provided by the applied collective agreement and that guaranteed by the collective agreement most appropriate or closest to the relevant economic category, particularly where an outsourcing contract operates in a different sector (in the case at hand, logistics versus food).
The Court further clarified that the burden of comparison cannot be improperly shifted onto the employee. A claim for recognition of the treatment under the “correct” collective agreement inherently includes, even without an express request, a claim for adjustment of remuneration under Article 36 of the Constitution, which the judge must assess ex officio.
For companies, HR, and personnel managers, the ruling confirms the need for careful evaluation of the coherence between the applied collective agreement, the activities performed, and the level of remuneration, especially in outsourcing and contracting contexts.
Higher-level duties and replacement: caution against “anomalous” long-term arrangements
With order no. 31120 of 28 November 2025, the Court of Cassation intervened on the assignment of higher-level duties in cases of replacement of an absent employee entitled to job retention, emphasizing the need to prevent potential employer abuses.
It is well established that replacement constitutes an exception to the general rule that performance of higher-level duties beyond the prescribed period (typically three months) results in definitive reclassification. However, this exception presupposes clear evidence of an actual replacement, understood as a real and temporary link between the absence of the job holder and the assignment to the substitute.
The Court stressed that, particularly in cases of exceptionally long duration (in the case examined, several years), the lower court must verify whether the assignment was used in a permanent or semi-permanent manner, circumventing classification rules and resulting in abuse. The absence of formal measures and the failure of the replaced employee to return to work are indicators requiring rigorous analysis of the specific circumstances.
The decision strengthens protection of workers’ professional status and calls on companies to manage replacements prudently and with proper documentation, especially when they extend beyond physiologically acceptable limits.
The Labour Law Department of Bacciardi Partners is available to employers, personnel managers, and HR functions for preventive analysis, expert opinions, and in-depth assessments on these and other labour and industrial relations law issues, including to mitigate litigation risk and support informed organizational decisions.
Avv. Enzo Bacciardi – Founder & Head of Litigation
Avv. Michele Sacchi – Of Counsel, Labour Law