Whistleblowing and Nullity of Retaliatory Dismissal

1. The facts

   According to reports by outlets such as Il Sole 24 Ore and Guida al Lavoro, the case stems from the dismissal of a manager who had reported serious accounting irregularities through internal channels provided by the corporate organizational model. The company justified the termination by citing a breach of the duty of loyalty, accusing the employee of having acquired confidential documents for personal ends. The dispute went through three levels of judgment, reaching the Supreme Court where the nullity of the dismissal was confirmed. The judges noted that the disciplinary charge was triggered only a few days after the report, constituting an evident punitive intent aimed at neutralizing the whistleblower. The case reflects the 2024 legal trends ordering the reinstatement of the worker.

2. 

   The laws at play

   1. Legislative Decree 24/2023 is the primary regulation governing whistleblowing, introducing in Art. 19 a legal presumption of retaliation for any unfavorable measure taken after the report.
   2. Art. 18 of Law 300/1970, known as the Workers' Statute, provides for full reinstatement protection in the event of a dismissal that is null because it is retaliatory, requiring the employer to rehire the employee and pay back wages.
   3. Articles 1418 and 1345 of the Civil Code establish the nullity of acts based on an exclusive and decisive illicit motive, such as the desire to retaliate against a legitimate report.

3. What the case law says

   The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has clarified that the burden of proof rests almost entirely on the employer once the so-called temporal coincidence between the report and the expulsive measure is demonstrated. According to settled case law, it is not sufficient for the company to prove the existence of a minor disciplinary breach; it must demonstrate that the dismissal would have been issued in the same manner even if the report had never occurred. The courts have also specified that protection extends even to a whistleblower who commits minor procedural infractions to obtain evidence of the wrongdoing, provided such actions are strictly necessary for the report and proportionate to the public interest pursued.

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. Always formalize internal reporting channels to prevent the employee from turning to external authorities, resulting in a loss of control over crisis management.
   2. Analytically document every disciplinary charge long before proceeding with dismissals, ensuring the employee's file is updated and consistent.
   3. Evaluate the timing of dismissal with extreme caution if a pending report is known, as temporal proximity shifts the burden of proof entirely onto the client.
   4. Educate companies on managing the whistleblower as a resource rather than an enemy, to avoid litigation with almost certain defeat.

References: D.Lgs. 10 marzo 2023, n. 24Legge 20 maggio 1970, n. 300 (Art. 18)Art. 1345 Codice Civile

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 23 September 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