CARLO PISANI
Professore Ordinario di Diritto del Lavoro nell’Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”
in
Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 1/26
SUMMARY. 1. The distinctive features of the case decided by the Court and its difference from cases involving an employee’s misconduct in relation to non-existent, aggravated, or self-inflicted sickness absence. — 2. The prejudice to the employer, ancillary duties, and the balance with the employee’s freedom during leisure time. — 3. The so-called general duty of “loyalty,” the scope of preparatory duties, and the absence of a general obligation to “remain healthy.” — 4. Protective duties and the risk of prejudice to the employer arising from an employee’s work performance becoming subject to further limitations or resulting in unfitness for the assigned duties.
ABSTRACT. The Author examines the judgment of the Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), 27 October 2025, No. 28367, which upheld the dismissal of an employee for violating, during his leisure time, the prescriptions issued by the occupational physician. The article reflects on the expansion of employees’ ancillary duties, arguing that compliance with such prescriptions should be regarded more as a burden than as a genuine contractual duty, while preserving the proper balance between the employer’s interests and the employee’s freedom in private life.