The four abrogative referendum questions, initiated by popular demand and promoted by the CGIL trade union, having passed the admissibility and legitimacy review by the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation respectively, will be submitted to voters on 8 and 9 June 2025.
First Question: Repeal of Legislative Decree No. 23 of 4 March 2015
The first question concerns the total repeal of Legislative Decree No. 23 of 2015, which regulates open-ended employment contracts with increasing protection. However, the controversial point is that the repeal would not revive the original version of Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute, which provided for reinstatement in all cases of unlawful dismissal, without exception. Instead, the version of Article 18 reformed by Law No. 92 of 2012 (the so-called “Fornero Reform”) would apply.
Therefore, the slogan used by the promoters—suggesting that a “yes” vote would block “the abolition of rules that prevent reinstatement in cases of unlawful dismissal”—is misleading. Even under the Fornero system, reinstatement is not the only remedy: monetary compensation is still possible. Specifically, unless the dismissal is radically null (e.g., discriminatory, retaliatory, oral, etc.), reinstatement is only available in cases of non-existence of the fact underpinning the dismissal or, in disciplinary dismissals, if the collective agreement provides a lesser sanction (e.g., fine or suspension) for the same conduct.
These cases were partially eliminated by Decree No. 23 but reintroduced—albeit with uncertainties—by Constitutional Court judgments No. 128 and 129 of 2024. As a result, after these constitutional corrections, the current legal framework (the “Jobs Act”) is substantially equivalent to the pre-existing regime under the Fornero Reform, which the referendum aims to reinstate.
More specifically, the main consequences of the repeal would include:
- Reducing the range of indemnity from 6–36 months to 12–24 months;
- Reinstatement in case of failure to comply with the reallocation obligation (repêchage);
- Reinstatement if the dismissal was based on conduct that the national collective agreement sanctions conservatively through general clauses (not specifically defined);
- Exclusion of unlimited reinstatement where dismissal is unjustified due to the employee’s physical or mental disability;
- Increase of minimum indemnity for formal violations from 2–12 months (Art. 4, Decree 23/2015) to 6–12 months (Art. 18(6));
- Reinstatement of the mandatory pre-dismissal conciliation attempt at the local Labour Inspectorate for dismissals based on economic grounds;
- Reintroduction of reinstatement in collective dismissals if selection criteria are violated.
In light of these developments, the referendum questions seem to disregard the significant counter-reform enacted by six Constitutional Court rulings between 2018 and 2024.
Second Question: Removal of the Cap on Compensation for Unjustified Dismissals by Small Employers
This question targets Article 8 of Law No. 604 of 15 July 1966 and seeks to eliminate the statutory cap on compensation due from employers not meeting the dimensional thresholds under Article 18(8) of the Workers’ Statute (i.e., more than 15 employees at a single site or in a municipality, or over 60 nationally), in the event of an unjustified dismissal and as an alternative to reinstatement.
However, Article 8 only applies to employees hired before 7 March 2015, since from that date onwards, the analogous Article 9 of Legislative Decree No. 23 of 2015 applies. Therefore, if the full repeal of Decree No. 23 is rejected and this question is approved, the removal of indemnity caps would apply solely to Article 8 of Law No. 604/1966, with no effect on post-2015 hires.
In substance, by removing the words “and a maximum of 6 months,” along with the provisions increasing the cap to 10 or 14 months for longer service (over 10 or 20 years, respectively), compensation for unjustified dismissal would be set by the judge, with a minimum of 2.5 months’ salary but no upper limit. This would give employees of small employers a potentially more favourable remedy than those protected under the current Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute (max 24 months) or Article 3 of Legislative Decree No. 23/2015 (max 36 months).
Nonetheless, the Constitutional Court has also been asked to rule on this issue. Even if the referendum fails, it will still rule on the constitutionality of this compensation regime.
Third Question: Reintroduction of Objective Grounds for Fixed-Term Contracts
The third question aims to reinstate the obligation to specify objective grounds (causali) for all fixed-term employment contracts, including initial ones. To do so, a selective repeal of Article 19 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015 is proposed. Currently, the law only requires grounds after 12 months of total contract duration.
Repealing this provision would radically change the current legal framework, which is the result of complex reforms following the rigid rules of Law No. 230/1962.
The current system regulates various aspects: written form requirements, sector-specific bans, maximum duration, limits on renewals and extensions, and mandatory gaps between contracts. Allowing acausal fixed-term contracts for up to 12 months strikes a balance between employer flexibility and worker protection.
Currently, for fixed-term contracts beyond one year, one of the following must apply under Article 19(1):
a) objective grounds defined in national collective agreements;
b) company-level agreements for technical, organisational, or production needs;
b-bis) replacement of employees.
If the referendum succeeds, the use of fixed-term contracts without objective justification would be eliminated from the outset. However, option b (company-level agreements) would no longer apply, even though it is already set to expire on 31 December 2025 regardless of the referendum outcome.
Fourth Question: Joint Liability of the Principal in Case of Work Accidents
The fourth question seeks to repeal Article 26(4) of Legislative Decree No. 81/2008, insofar as it excludes the principal’s joint liability for damages not compensated by INAIL (the national work accident insurance) when these arise from “specific risks inherent to the activities of the contractor or subcontractor.” In short, the principal would be jointly liable even for damages resulting from risks solely attributable to the contractor’s specific expertise or operations.
Extending liability to such cases—where the contracted work involves specialised knowledge possessed only by the contractor—would impose almost strict liability on the principal, who is not expected (nor allowed) to interfere in the contractor’s operations. In fact, the principal’s interference in the contractor’s business would be indicative of an unlawful subcontracting arrangement, since genuine separation of business operations and risk is necessary to avoid sham contracting.
Ironically, the only way for the principal to protect themselves from this expanded liability would be through constant oversight and interference in the contractor’s operations—undermining the legitimacy of the outsourcing itself. Therefore, if the referendum passes, the principal’s liability would become effectively punitive in nature.
The opinions and information contained in this Newsletter are for informational purposes only and should not be regarded as sufficient for making operational decisions or assuming commitments of any kind. They do not constitute legal advice.
This Newsletter is the property of Studio Legale Carlo Pisani e Associati.
For further insights or assistance in drafting collective agreements compliant with the new rules and/or implementing sustainable participatory models aligned with corporate structures, please contact: