The Supreme Court, with ruling no. 4077 of February 23, 2026, reiterated that when verbal dismissal is alleged, the burden of proof falls on the employee, who is required to demonstrate the alleged oral dismissal.
An employee appealed to the Court of Paola seeking reinstatement, alleging that he had been verbally dismissed.
The Court rejected the appeal with a ruling partially reversed by the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, which, while holding that the existence of an employment relationship had been established, did not consider the mere termination of the employment relationship sufficient to prove verbal dismissal.
In rejecting the appeal, the District Court invoked the principle of law now considered consolidated in Supreme Court case law, according to which "The employee who challenges dismissal by alleging a notice of dismissal without observing the written form has the burden of proving, as a constitutive fact of the claim, that the termination of the employment relationship is attributable to the employer's will, even if manifested through conclusive conduct, since proof of the mere cessation of performance of the work is not sufficient. In the event that the employer objects that the employment relationship was terminated due to the employee's resignation, and following the outcome of the investigation – to be conducted also through the official powers pursuant to Article 421 of the Code of Civil Procedure – the evidentiary uncertainty persists, the employee's claim will be rejected pursuant to the residual rule deducible from Article 2697 of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 4077 of February 23, 2026, in rejecting the worker's cross-appeal, held that the precedents of legitimacy cited by the appellant worker were to be considered either outdated or irrelevant to the case at hand. The alleged violation of art. 5 of Law no. 604/1966 was irrelevant, as the provision concerns the different hypothesis of the burden of proof, placed on the employer, of just cause or justified reason for dismissal.
If verbal dismissal is alleged, the Supreme Court concludes, the employee is required to demonstrate the alleged verbal dismissal, which, however, is excluded in the specific case, even in light of a letter of resignation filed by the company and not formally disavowed by the employee.
Attorney Nicoletta Di Lolli