With a decision destined to deeply affect industrial relations, the Constitutional Court has once again ruled on the right to establish workplace union representation. In judgment no. 156 of October 30, 2025, the Court declared partially unconstitutional Article 19 of the Workers’ Statute, insofar as it limits the right to set up workplace union representatives (RSA) to those organizations that have signed or taken part in negotiating the collective agreement applied within the production unit.
According to the Court, even trade unions that are “comparatively more representative” at the national level must be able to exercise union prerogatives in the workplace, regardless of whether they have signed the relevant collective agreement.
The case originated from a dispute between an autonomous transport union and a local public services company, which had denied the union’s request to establish an RSA on the grounds that, although it had significant membership among employees, it had not taken part in negotiating the applicable collective agreement. The Labour Court of Modena, before which the case was brought, referred the question of constitutionality, arguing that the signature requirement might discriminate against genuinely representative organizations excluded from the bargaining table. The Constitutional Court upheld this concern, finding that the current wording of Article 19 violates the principles of equality and trade union freedom enshrined in Articles 3 and 39 of the Italian Constitution.
To grasp the scope of this decision, it is worth recalling that the rule on the right to form RSAs has already undergone several changes. In its original 1970 version, the right belonged to unions affiliated with the most representative confederations. After the 1995 referendum, the affiliation criterion was repealed, leaving the signing of the collective agreement as the sole requirement. This approach was long considered a useful compromise to prevent excessive union fragmentation, but over time its weaknesses became evident: in many workplaces, the opportunity to sign an agreement depends on political dynamics and on employers’ choices as to which unions to admit to negotiations. The outcome has often been that unions with real worker support were denied any representational rights, while less representative but signatory organizations enjoyed the enhanced prerogatives recognized by the Statute.
The Court has now acknowledged that this mechanism no longer ensures a balance consistent with constitutional principles. Union rights, it held, cannot depend on the will of others — whether employers or unions already at the bargaining table. Actual representativeness, measured through organizational presence and worker consensus, carries more weight than a contract signature. The Court did not create a general right for all unions to form RSAs, but extended this possibility to those “comparatively more representative at national level,” recognizing their sufficient legitimacy to engage with employers even without being signatories.
The practical implications for companies are far from minor. From now on, employers may face requests to establish RSAs from unions that, though not parties to the collective agreement, are nationally recognized as representative. In practice, HR departments may need to deal with a broader range of interlocutors and grant premises, leave, and other union rights to new organizations. Moreover, any refusal to allow the formation of an RSA could now be challenged as anti-union conduct under Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute, potentially ushering in a new wave of litigation.
However, the Court did not clearly define representativeness criteria. It merely referred to the notion of “comparative national representativeness,” already used in other contexts such as public sector bargaining or interconfederal relations. This creates significant uncertainty for companies, which will have to assess representativeness without having access to reliable data.
Key questions remain: should representativeness be measured through membership data, electoral results, strike participation, or involvement in sectoral bargaining? Without legislative clarification, a period of interpretative uncertainty is likely, with case-by-case assessments left to labour courts. It should be recalled that an employer’s unlawful denial of the right to establish an RSA may be challenged under Article 28 of the Workers’ Statute on anti-union conduct.
From a business standpoint, this new scenario calls for prudence and adaptability. Companies should monitor actual union presence, verify levels of representativeness, and update internal policies on industrial relations and union rights. These are not merely formal steps, but measures to prevent disputes and maintain balanced labour relations. At least initially, employers may face recognition requests from autonomous or non-confederated unions previously excluded from negotiations. In such cases, careful legal assessment will be essential to avoid breaches of equal-treatment principles or conduct that could be viewed as discriminatory.
This broader openness brings additional coordination and management burdens. The plurality of interlocutors could complicate company bargaining dynamics and multiply potential conflicts. For large firms accustomed to dealing with major confederated unions, the impact may be limited. But for medium-sized companies, where union presence is more fluid and internal processes less formalized, the consequences could be significant.
Judgment no. 156/2025 thus marks an important step in the ongoing evolution of Article 19 of the Workers’ Statute. It raises many practical questions and should prompt lawmakers to define the union representation system more coherently. Until then, it will fall to the courts to balance trade-union freedom with the need for legal certainty.
For companies, this transition phase is an opportunity to review industrial relations structures, ensure internal consistency, and design more flexible and inclusive strategies for union dialogue. Transparency and sound management of union relations are not only legal obligations but also key to mitigating reputational and litigation risks. The Constitutional Court’s ruling implicitly calls on both businesses and institutions to make union freedom compatible with organizational and productivity needs. The future of workplace industrial relations will depend, more than ever, on companies’ ability to view this new equilibrium not as a constraint but as an opportunity for dialogue and modernization.
The information and opinions contained in this Newsletter are for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal or professional advice. This Newsletter is the property of Studio Legale Carlo Pisani e Associati.
For further information on the topics discussed, please contact: