The "Punitive System" in Companies and Workplace Violence

1. The facts

   The case brought before the Court of Cassation involves a company operating in the concrete sector, whose executives were accused of establishing an organized climate of fear. According to press reports, the proceedings concluded with a final judgment of the Court of Cassation confirming the convictions handed down in the lower courts. The judges established the existence of a true punitive system with scalar progression: employees were forced into grueling shifts of up to 20 consecutive hours and high-risk tasks, such as painting silos without any personal protective equipment. The threat of dismissal was systematically used to break all resistance, constituting not merely a labor law violation, but a coercion of will aimed at obtaining an unfair profit from savings on safety and personnel costs. In one emblematic episode, an injured worker was forced to make a false statement to avoid inspections, under threat of losing their job.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The legal core of the case lies in Art. 629 of the Criminal Code (Extortion), applied because the threat of dismissal was aimed at obtaining degrading or dangerous performance, securing an unfair advantage for the company. This is coupled with Art. 603-bis of the Criminal Code (Illicit Intermediation and Labor Exploitation), although the Cassation Court prioritized extortion due to the presence of a specific vis compulsiva that nullifies self-determination. On the civil and preventive side, Art. 2087 of the Civil Code, which imposes the duty to protect the physical and moral integrity of the worker, and Legislative Decree 81/2008 are relevant, as their systematic violations, such as lack of PPE and rest periods, formed the objective basis of the criminal conduct.

3. What case law says

   Case law from the Court of Cassation has clarified that violence relevant for criminal purposes does not necessarily require physical contact, fully encompassing so-called moral violence. According to now consolidated jurisprudence, the prospect of unfair harm, such as the loss of income in a precarious context, is suitable to constitute extortion when used to impose working conditions contrary to the law or human dignity. The court also specified that the worker's consent to extra or dangerous tasks is entirely irrelevant if given under oppressive hierarchical subordination, as the freedom of choice required to qualify the agreement as a legitimate contractual synallagma is absent.

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. What it teaches professionals

   1. Revision of organizational models: lawyers must advise companies to eliminate practices that could be interpreted as punitive or retaliatory systems.
   2. Safety oversight: lack of PPE is not just an administrative risk, but can become the objective element of an extortion crime if combined with hierarchical pressure.
   3. Management of dissent: any worker objection regarding health and safety must be managed through transparent procedures, avoiding any link between technical feedback and disciplinary action.
   4. Criminal risk analysis: it is essential to evaluate the robustness of incentive and control systems in light of the definition of moral violence expressed by the supreme judges.

References: Art. 629 c.p.Art. 603-bis c.p.Art. 2087 c.c.D.Lgs. 81/2008

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 15 August 2026