Italy: Dismissal is lawful if the false testimony undermines trust 

Author: Angelo Zambelli 

The disciplinary relevance of a statement, recorded in a witness report, which is knowingly or culpably untrue, cannot be ruled out in advance where, by virtue of its content, context and seriousness, it is capable of undermining the bond of trust between the parties. 

The disciplinary relevance of a statement, recorded in a witness report, which is knowingly or culpably untrue, cannot be ruled out in advance where, by virtue of its content, context and seriousness, it is capable of undermining the relationship of trust. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court, Labour Section, in Order No. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressing the delicate relationship between the employee’s duty to give evidence and the employer’s disciplinary powers. 

The case concerns the challenge of a dismissal notified further to testimony given by the employee in a separate civil case brought by her sister against the company. According to the disciplinary complaint, the employee had made statements that were manifestly false and seriously damaging to the company’s image and reputation, having accused the employer of preventing employees from carrying out the prescribed procedures in order to avoid bringing to light health and safety issues in the workplace. 

The Court of Velletri, without a proof-taking stage, declared the dismissal null and void on the grounds that it was retaliatory and based on an unlawful reason pursuant to Articles 1418 and 1345 of the Civil Code, ruling out the existence of any disciplinary offence. 

The Court of Appeal of Rome upheld the first-degree decision, considering it irrelevant to ascertain the truth of the statements made by the employee. According to the Court of merits, the testimony – being confined to the context of the proceedings and given in fulfilment of a civic duty – was in any case not such as to cause any moral or material harm to the company, nor to irreparably damage the bond of trust. 

The Supreme Court, rejecting this approach, states that the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee acting as a witness in court cannot be ruled out beforehand, where such statements are knowingly or culpably untrue, damaging to the employer’s honour, reputation and image, and such that, by virtue of their content, context and seriousness, they are capable of undermining the relationship of trust. Therefore, in the present case, whilst it is true that the employee has a duty to give evidence, this does not automatically imply that the statements she makes cannot be of disciplinary relevance, particularly if they amount to an allegation of failure to comply with regulations aimed at preventing accidents of particular social significance. Indeed, giving false evidence in civil proceedings constitutes just cause for dismissal where, by attributing to the employer acts that seriously undermine its dignity and integrity, it irreparably damages the relationship of trust between the parties. 

With regard to dismissal for retaliatory reasons, the judges of the Supreme Court refer to a well-established orientation of case law, according to which such a dismissal is classified as null and void on the grounds of a decisive unlawful cause under Article 1345 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the Court clarifies that the mere disproportion between the conduct alleged against the employee and the dismissal sanction does not, in itself, suffice to classify the dismissal as retaliatory; for the unlawful ground to constitute the sole and decisive factor, the reason given and substantiated must be purely formal or apparent, or must, in any event, be such that, given the specific factual circumstances or the extremely minor disciplinary significance, it amounts to a mere pretext for notifying the dismissal letter, so that the dismissal is not only disproportionate but also deliberately punitive. 

It follows from these premises that the judges of the Court of Appeal were wrong where they failed to consider it relevant to ascertain whether the testimony was true or false, automatically inferring retaliatory intent from the abstract lack of disciplinary relevance of the testimony, without verifying either the spurious nature of the allegation or the existence of further circumstantial evidence capable of demonstrating that retaliatory intent had been the sole determining factor in the termination. 

Practical Points

• The disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee acting as a witness in court cannot be ruled out beforehand. The judges of the Court of Appeal were wrong where they considered it irrelevant to ascertain whether the testimony was true or false, automatically inferring retaliatory intent from the abstract lack of disciplinary relevance of the testimony. 
• Giving false evidence in civil proceedings constitutes just cause for dismissal where, by attributing to the employer acts that seriously undermine its dignity and integrity, it irreparably damages the relationship of trust between the parties.