Dismissal for refusal to return from remote work: the weight of management power

1. The facts

   The case stems from the appeal of an employee of a national banking institution who, according to reports in the specialized press, had continued to work remotely despite the company's formal notice to return to the office. Following the termination of the regulatory exemptions linked to the pandemic period, the institution had reorganized physical presence in the offices, but the worker had ignored the warnings, claiming an alleged acquired right to agile working for family care reasons and based on implied conduct.

   The case reached the Supreme Court of Cassation after both the first-instance court and the Court of Appeal had confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause. The company argued that the unjustified absence, which lasted for several weeks despite reminders, had irremediably damaged the fiduciary bond. The worker's defense, based on the absence of prejudice to corporate productivity, was rejected in every instance, leading to a final order of dismissal.

2. 

   The legal framework

   The core of the issue lies in Law no. 81 of May 22, 2017, specifically Articles 18 and 19.

   1. Article 18 defines agile work as a method of executing the subordinate employment relationship established by agreement between the parties.
   2. Article 19 imposes the written form of the individual agreement ad substantiam, a requirement that was waived during the emergency but has returned to being central to the validity of the agile mode.
   3. Article 2104 of the Civil Code governs the employee's diligence, obliging the employee to observe the instructions given by the employer for the performance of work.
   4. Article 2119 of the Civil Code defines just cause for dismissal as a breach so serious as to prevent the continuation of the relationship, including the refusal to comply with lawful service orders.

3. What the case law says

   The case law of the higher courts has clarified that smart working does not represent a subjective right of the worker that can be exercised unilaterally. The judges have established that once the simplified regime provided by the emergency legislation ended, the employer regained the full extent of their management power in determining the place of work. It has been specified that the consent given by the company during the pandemic does not constitute an implied modification of the contractual conditions, nor can it be invoked as conclusive conduct to stabilize remote performance.

   Furthermore, the established orientation emphasizes that the insubordination of an employee who refuses to return to the site, even if they continue to work from home, is no less serious. The violation does not concern the amount of work produced, but respect for the organizational methods imposed. The courts have therefore confirmed that the choice of the place of performance is an employer's prerogative that cannot be challenged on its merits, provided it is not discriminatory, and failure to comply justifies the maximum expulsive penalty.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. Lessons for professionals

   1. Always formalize any extension of post-emergency smart working through written supplementary agreements, avoiding reliance on customary practice.
   2. Evaluate with extreme care any insubordination regarding a service order, as maintaining productivity does not exclude the severity of the breach.
   3. Always verify the existence of clauses in collective agreements that might mitigate the obligation of the individual written form or impose stricter motivational burdens on the employer.

References: Legge 22 maggio 2017, n. 81Art. 2104 Codice CivileArt. 2119 Codice CivileArt. 19 Legge 81/2017

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 9 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction