With a recent ruling the Supreme Court clarified that with the stipulation of an extension the parties only differ the expiry date of the original contractual structure while maintaining the identity of the contract substantially intact.
A worker, employed at a car dealership with a full-time fixed-term contract, stipulated a new fixed-term employment contract with the employer which provided for a new expiry date and different economic and regulatory conditions.
Upon termination of the second contract, the worker claimed before the Court of Bolzano the nullity of the time clauses attached to the employment contracts, claiming the conversion of the contract into an ordinary permanent employment relationship.
The worker objected that the second fixed-term contract could not be classified as an extension since both the compensation and the duration of the original working hours had been renegotiated.
The Court accepted the request with a sentence confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal of Trento, Bolzano section.
The Court of Cassation with sentence no. 26153 of 7 October 2024 rejected the company's appeal, confirming the decision as it found that, in the absence of a qualification of the extension and renewal institutions, the two institutions are characterized by a substantial difference. The Supreme Court stated that with the stipulation of an extension the parties only differ the expiry date of the original contractual structure while maintaining the identity of the contract substantially intact. With renewal, vice versa, the will of the parties not only affects the postponement of the effects but also the very causal identity of the relationship which is implemented through a renegotiation of the negotiation structure with a novative or modifying nature.
In application of the established principles that the Court of Cassation, also recalling administrative practice, rejected the appeal, deeming correct the finding of the District Court which had declared that the parties had signed a renewal in violation of the minimum interval.
Lawyer of Nicoletta Di Lolli