Several and significant legislative interventions have been introduced in the course of the year 2024, and they are expected to have a notable impact in the world of employment in Italy in 2025.
The Italian government has confirmed the reform commenced in 2024 of the provisions relating to fixed-term employment contracts.
The Ministerial Decree of 29 February 2024, entered into force on 5 April 2024, has at last implemented the Digital Nomads Visa, first introduced in the Italian system in 2022.
Moreover, the Senate Bill No. 1264 (so-called “DDL Lavoro”) concludes a legislative process that introduces significant updates to labour law, addressing contemporary labour market needs by covering a broad spectrum of issues.
In addition to that, during 2024 the Italian Constitutional Court again reviewed, more than once, the Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 (Provisions on permanent employment contracts with increasing protection over time, implementing Law no. 183/2014, the so-called “Jobs Act”), with rulings that, in all cases, have had a significant social impact.
1. Interventions of the Italian Constitutional Court on the so-called “Jobs Act” in 2024
Decision no. 7/2024: Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 10, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 are lawful
The Constitutional Court, with judgment no. 7 of 22 January 2024, ruled on the constitutional legitimacy of the abolition of reinstatement for unjustified dismissals for objective reasons for employees hired after 7 March 2015.
The case under exam originated from the question of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Court of Appeal of Naples, with reference to Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 10 of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015, insofar as they provide only for the indemnity protection in case of unlawful collective dismissals of employees hired after March 2015 for the breach of the selection criteria, in line with what is provided in case of individual dismissals for objective reasons.
Specifically, the Court of Appeal, in relation to the challenge of the dismissal of an employee hired in 2016 following a collective dismissal procedure for “staff reduction,” found that a different treatment based on the time of hiring within the same redundancy procedure would result in “an unreasonable disparity of protection […]” and that such treatment constitutes “a diminution of the compensation for the damage caused, to the extent that it does not guarantee an effective and adequate sanction in case of violation of the selection criteria.”
The Italian Constitutional Court stated that “different treatment applied to the same situations, but at different times, does not, by itself, constitute a breach of the equality principle, as the passage of time may constitute a valid element for differentiating legal situations.”
By expressing the above conclusions, the Constitutional Court provided that the regime introduced by Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 is not unreasonable and that the indemnity protection currently afforded to an unlawfully dismissed employee, as a result of a staff reduction procedure, is adequate.
Decision no. 22/2024: Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 is unconstitutional
With judgment no. 22 of 22 February 2024, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015, as regards the part that provides for reinstatement only in the cases of voidance of the dismissal “expressly provided for by law.”
The case under exam concerned the compliance with Italian Constitution of Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015, initiated by the Supreme Court with referral order of 7 April 2023.
In particular, the Supreme judges took as a basis the decision of the Florence Court of Appeal that—having found that the dismissal of an employee was null and void due to the breach of the special regulations applied to him—had not granted him the reinstatement but only the indemnity protection.
The Court of Appeal justified its decision on the grounds that (i) Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 “provides for the reinstatement of the employee only in cases of discriminatory dismissal” or “in the other cases of voidance expressly provided for by law” and (ii) in that case “discriminatory nature had to be excluded, and the voidness was not expressed.”
The employee challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, complaining that the Court of Appeal – in stating that the reinstatement protection only applies to the cases of express voidness and not to all cases of voidness—wrongly interpreted Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 both from the standpoint of breach of the enabling Law no. 183/2014 and because the emphasis of the adverb “expressly” would be unconstitutional and, in any case, illogical and inconsistent.
The Supreme Court, with referral order no. 9530 of 7 April 2023, ruled that the exclusion of voidness other than those expressed—consequent to the use in Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 of the adverb “expressly”—was not reflected in Law no. 183/2014, which on the contrary, recognized reinstatement in case of null dismissals generically understood, without any distinction. In light of the above, the Supreme judges raised questions concerning the compliance with the Constitution of the said Article where it provides for reinstatement in the event of discriminatory dismissal or “in the other cases of voidance expressly provided for by law.”
With judgment no. 22/2024, the Constitutional Court stated that the distinction between “express nullities and nullities that are not expressed” is not based in the enabling Law no. 183/2014.
By expressing the above conclusions, the Court provided that, in the future, the regime of void dismissals will be the same both in the case where the mandatory provision breached also contains the express—and textual—sanction of voidness and in the case where voidness is not expressly envisaged as a sanction.
Decision no. 44/2024: small companies, Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 applies also to employees hired before its entry into force
This time, with decision no. 44 issued on 19 March 2024, the Constitutional Court found Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 in compliance with the Italian Constitution with reference to the extension of its discipline to all employees working in entities exceeding the threshold of fifteen employees after the date the Legislative Decree entered into force.
The Italian Constitutional Court on the legitimacy of Article 1, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 stated that it is in compliance with the Italian Constitution, also in the part where it allows the application of the unlawful dismissals regime for those hired after 7 March 2015 to all the employees working in companies that exceeded the dimensional limits referred to in article 18 Law no. 300/1970, as a result of hiring after that date.
In particular, the case before the Court of Lecce was about the challenge of a dismissal of an employee hired before 7 March 2015 who had invoked the application of the protections set out in article 18 Law no. 300/1970, as generally applied to those who were hired before that date in companies with more than fifteen employees. The company, for its part, insisted on the application of article 1, paragraph 3, Legislative Decree no. 23/2015, objecting that “although at the time of dismissal the requirements of the art. 18 […] were met, the numerical threshold had been exceeded after the entry into force of the aforementioned Legislative Decree no. 23 of 2015.” The Court of Lecce had doubted the constitutional legitimacy of this provision due to excessive delegation, with reference to the criteria set out in Law no. 183/2014 enacting the related decree, which “by delegating to the Government the provision of permanent contracts with increasing protections, limits its application to «new hires».”
The Constitutional Court, valorising the “overall aim” pursued by the legislator in 2014 of strengthening opportunities for entering into the labour market, instead concluded that it was allowed to the delegated legislator, “in the exercise of its power to complete the framework of the discipline,” to “regulate the position of employees in small companies, for whom there was no reinstatement protection regime pursuant to article 18 to be preserved.” More precisely, the Court states that for small companies, being able to apply the provisions of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 to the entire workforce after exceeding the threshold of fifteen employees, regardless of each date of hiring, represents “an incentive (or the absence of obstacles) to grow in the company dimension.”
In any case, taking into account the “balance desired by the delegating legislator,” the Italian Judge of Laws does not find any “regression in peius” in the protections provided by Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 for those employees already in force on 7 March 2015, to whom, before exceeding the size limit, the less favourable regulations of Law no. 604/1966 applied.
Decisions no. 128/2024 and 129/2024: questions on Article 3, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015
With ruling no. 128 of 16 July 2024, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 3, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015, insofar as it did not provide for the application of reinstatement protection in cases of dismissal for justified objective reason, where the factual basis alleged by the employer was directly proven to be non-existent in court.
In particular, the Court clarified that the provision requires that, although the business reason underlying the dismissal for justified objective reason is not subject to judicial review on its merits, the factual element alleged by the employer must at least be “existent.”
Therefore, according to the Court, it is precisely “the radical irrelevance […] of the non-existence of the material fact in case of dismissal for justified objective reason”—unlike in the parallel case of dismissal for just cause or justified subjective reason—that leads to “a lack of systematic coherence.” This is because the fact, whether challenged as “an alleged breach of conduct that did not actually occur” or presented “as a business reason that does not actually exist,” is equally non-existent in both cases.
Finally, the Court ruled that there can be no “justification for a differentiated rule” between economic and disciplinary dismissals when the absence of the fact (objective or subjective) is proven. In such a case, “an equal sanctioning treatment” must correspond to “the same seriousness of the defect.”
This led to the declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 3, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015, which unjustifiably differentiated “identical or at least similar situations.”
Still with reference to Article 3, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015, the Constitutional Court, in its judgment no. 129 of 16 July 2024, stated that it must be read in the sense of assimilating the hypothesis of the absence of a material fact to that in which the fact is punished by collective bargaining with a conservative sanction.
In such cases, indeed, the Court clarified that “the alleged fact is substantially unsuitable, by express agreement, to justify the dismissal,” which, if served, “turns out to be in breach of the statute of the collective agreements’ provisions,” with the consequent applicability of the reinstatement.
2. Key provisions of the so-called “DDL Lavoro” introduced in December 2024
On December 11, 2024, the Italian Senate definitively approved Senate Bill No. 1264 (DDL Lavoro), which introduces significant updates to labor law covering a broad spectrum of issues, including conclusive resignation, hybrid employment contracts, authentic interpretation norms for seasonal work, probationary periods in fixed-term contracts, mandatory notifications for remote work, and temporary work provisions. This article provides an analytical overview of the principal innovations.
1. What is new in employees’ resignation?
One of the most significant and widely discussed provisions introduced is the regulation of resignation by conduct (“dimissioni per fatti concludenti”), aimed at countering the widespread practice of employees abandoning their workplace without justification. This practice often compels employers to terminate the employment relationship, thereby allowing the employee to gain access to NASpI unemployment benefits, which are otherwise unavailable to those who voluntarily resign without just cause. The new rule, introduced in Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 151/2015 by Article 19 of the DDL Lavoro, stipulates that an unexcused absence extending beyond the threshold established by the applicable collective agreement, or 15 days in its absence, constitutes a resignation. Exceptions apply if the employee can demonstrate the presence of force majeure or employer fault that prevented timely communication of the absence’s justification. Additionally, employers are required to notify the Territorial Labour Inspectorate (ITL) of such absences to verify their authenticity. The law’s implementation will require clarification from the National Labor Inspectorate (INL) regarding notification methods and ITL verification criteria.
2. What are the so-called hybrid contracts?
Article 17 addresses hybrid employment contracts, which allow professionals to combine part-time, open-ended employment with self-employment or professional collaboration. Eligibility is contingent on the employer having more than 250 employees and the part-time contract involving 40% to 50% of the full-time hours specified in the applicable collective labour agreement. Professionals may engage in these contracts provided their activities under the employment and self-employment arrangements remain distinct in terms of scope, scheduling, and locations. The contracts require certification by competent commissions, as outlined in Legislative Decree No. 273/2003. For non-professionals, such arrangements are permissible under proximity agreements, as per Article 8 of Decree-Law No. 138/2011.
3. How should the article on seasonal work be interpreted?
Article 11 introduces an authentic interpretation of Article 21(2) of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015, clarifying that collective agreements covering increased workload during specific periods include activities tied to production cycles or seasonal market demands. The interpretation has retroactive effect, resolving disputes in ongoing cases.
4. How will the probationary periods in fixed-term contracts work?
Article 13 establishes proportionality in the duration of probationary periods for fixed-term contracts, which must correspond to the length of the contract and the nature of the duties. For contracts shorter than six months, the probationary period must last between two and fifteen days. For contracts lasting between six and twelve months, it must range from two to thirty days. The provision respects collective agreements, which may set more favourable terms.
5. Is the notification for remote work still required?
Article 14 confirms that employers are required to electronically report the names of employees engaged in remote work and the start and end dates of such arrangements. Notifications must be made within five days, in accordance with Ministerial Decree No. 149/2022.
6. What is new in temporary employment and worker supply?
The amendments to Article 31 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015 eliminate quantitative limits on temporary supply contracts for specific worker categories, including employees of supply agencies on permanent contracts or individuals in particular circumstances. Transitional provisions limiting the cumulative duration of assignments to 24 months are repealed, allowing greater flexibility in the use of temporary worker supply.
7. Deferred payment of Social Security contributions?
Effective January 1, 2025, Article 23 permits the instalment payment of unpaid contributions to INPS and INAIL over a maximum of 60 monthly instalments. Detailed eligibility criteria and procedures will be outlined in subsequent ministerial guidelines.
8. What are the reforms in apprenticeship contracts?
Article 15 extends financial resources from the Social Employment Fund to all forms of apprenticeship, previously limited to professional apprenticeship. Additionally, Article 18 allows the conversion of apprenticeship contracts for vocational or professional qualifications into advanced training or research apprenticeships, contingent on an updated individual training plan.
9. Will online conciliations be the future?
Article 20 introduces telematic conciliation procedures under the Italian Civil Procedure Code. Ministerial decrees will define technical standards to ensure the reliability and accessibility of these virtual conciliation processes.
10. What are the impacts on Wage Guarantee Funds (Cassa Integrazione)?
Article 6 replaces Article 8 of Legislative Decree No. 148/2015. Workers engaging in secondary employment during periods covered by wage guarantees will face a proportional reduction in benefits rather than a complete suspension. This aligns with established jurisprudence, such as the Court of Cassation’s Decision No. 12487/1992, which confirms proportionality in benefit reduction for simultaneous employment.
3. Fixed-term employment contracts
The open-ended contract is in Italy the usual form of employment.
It means that the employer may enter into fixed-term employment contracts only in specific circumstances and with the modalities explicitly provided for by the law.
In particular, fixed-term employment contracts are currently regulated by sections 19–29 of Legislative Decree no. 81 of June 15, 2015, as amended by Law Decree no. 87 of July 12, 2018, and, more recently, by Law Decree no. 48/2023 (the so-called “Labour Decree”) issued by the Italian Government on May 5, 2023, and converted into Law no. 85 of July 3, 2023.
According to such legal provisions, it is possible:
- To enter into fixed-term contracts, without a specific reason, for a maximum 12-month duration;
- To enter into fixed-term contracts (as well as extending or renewing, exceeding the 12-month duration, already pending fixed-term contracts):
– Having a duration longer than 12 months;
– Not exceeding a maximum 24-month duration, also considering the duration periods of all fixed-term contracts stipulated with the same employer,
only subject to the presence of at least one of the following “conditions:”
- Specific reasons established by the collective bargaining agreements (at national, territorial or company level);
- Employees’ replacement needs (except in case of strike);
- In the absence of a specific regulation established by the applicable collective bargaining agreement, technical and/or organizational and/or production reasons identified by the employer and the employee.
Should a fixed-term contract longer than 12 months be entered into (or a pending fixed-term agreement extended or renewed) in the absence of one of the specific abovementioned reasons, the contract is converted into an open-ended one as of the date in which the limit of 12 months is exceeded.
According to Law Decree no. 48/2023, reason under (iii) above should have been effective until April 30, 2024.
What are the last changes in the regulation of fixed-term employment contracts?
1. Extension of the term of effectiveness of the technical and/or organizational and/or production-related reasons
The faculty for the employer to conclude a fixed-term contract exceeding 12 months of duration on the basis of technical, organizational, or production-related needs agreed upon by the parties was initially extended until December 31, 2024, by the Italian Law Decree no. 215/2023 (so-called “Decreto Milleproroghe 2024”).
Subsequently, the above term has been further extended until December 31, 2025, by an Italian Law Decree approved by the Council of Ministers on December 9, 2024 (so-called “Decreto Milleproroghe 2025”).
In the absence of this latest extension, as of January 1, 2025, it would no longer have been possible to conclude fixed-term employment contracts exceeding 12 months of duration for technical, organizational or production-related reasons identified by the employer and the employee.
The ratio behind this additional extension likely lies in the delay of some National Collective Labour Agreements in establishing the first of the “conditions” set forth by Law Decree no. 48/2023 (see under Paragraph 1, (i), above): many national collective labour agreements (such as, for example, the National Collective Labour Agreement for the Metalworking Industry) have not included yet any specific provisions on the reasons justifying the conclusion of fixed-term contracts exceeding a 12-month duration, making it basically impossible to use them except in case of personnel replacement needs.
The following pre-existing rules remain in force:
- The reason for stipulating a fixed-term agreement exceeding 12 months of duration must not be generic but rather specific and verifiable in concrete terms: it must reflect the company’s genuine temporary needs and persist throughout the employment relationship, including extensions;
- Should a fixed-term contract be entered into without a reason or with a false justification, the employment relationship will be converted into an open-ended contract.
2. Last news on compensation for damages due to violation of the legislation on fixed-term contracts
A further development regarding fixed-term contracts has been introduced by the recent Law Decree no. 131 issued on September 16, 2024, and converted into Law no. 166 of November 14, 2024, concerning the damage compensation due to the employee in the event of violation of the provisions on fixed-term contracts and the conversion of the same into open-ended contracts.
In fact, Article 28 of Legislative Decree no. 81 of June 15, 2015, stipulated that, in cases of conversion of a fixed-term contract into an open-ended one, the employee would be entitled to receive a compensation for damages ranging from a minimum of 2.5 to a maximum of 12 monthly salaries.
This compensation was explicitly intended to fully remedy the damage suffered by the employees, excluding any additional or further damage that they might have concretely incurred.
Law Decree no. 131/2024 has recently amended Article 28 of Legislative Decree no. 81/2015 by granting the judge the discretion to determine an additional compensation (exceeding the aforementioned limit) in case the employee demonstrates to have suffered a greater damage.
Why was this legislative amendment necessary?
The legislator’s intervention followed infringement proceedings no. 2014/4231 triggered by the European Union against Italy, accused of violating Directive 1999/70/EC.
The said directive is aimed at preventing discrimination against fixed-term workers and at penalizing the abusive or repeated use of fixed-term contracts.
Through Law Decree no. 131/2024, Italy imposed on the employers a penalty for violating fixed-term contract regulations more proportionate to the damage suffered by the employees and more effective and appropriate to counteract the improper use of fixed-term contracts.
4. Digital Nomads Visa
Effective as of 5 April 2024, the Ministerial Decree implementing the Digital Nomads Visa for non-EU citizens
The Ministerial Decree of 29 February 2024 of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, enacted on 4 April 2024 and effective as of the following day, has implemented the Digital Nomads Visa and Stay Permit, introduced for the first time into the Italian system in 2022 pursuant to Article 27, paragraph 1, lett. q-bis), of the Immigration Consolidated Act (i.e. Legislative Decree no. 286/1998), as amended by Law no. 25/2022.
The visa is subdivided into the two categories of “digital nomads,” self-employed individuals (e.g., freelancers, consultants, or other independent specialists), and “remote workers,” subordinate employees or collaborators, as set out in Article 2, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 81/2015, who, by the use of technological tools, perform highly professional and digital tasks. Such activity in a remote way can be carried out for an employer or a principal having an organised business for the purpose of the production or exchange of goods or services with its registered office also outside the Italian territory.
The advantages arising thanks to these new provisions are undoubted, as they allow non-EU citizens to work remotely from Italy either without the need to apply for stay permits under the usual quotas determined on a yearly basis by the so-called Decreto Flussi or without the need to request a clearance for work (nulla osta).
Eligibility criteria
The visa can be granted only to highly specialized workers whose careers have or exceed the requisites listed in Article 27-quater of the Immigration Consolidated Act, including positions requiring post-secondary qualifications, i.e. university degrees, or, in an area characterized by technical or specialized knowledge, several years’ training or professional experience, such as at least five or three years if the activity is in the field of information and communication technology.
In addition to the above, the requirements for obtaining the visa are:
- a minimum annual income from lawful sources of not less than three times the minimum level required for exemption from health care participation expenses. Proof of this can be provided by documentary evidence attesting that an income at least equal to that required by law has been earned in the country of residence for the previous year, or for remote workers, it can be evidenced by the employment or collaboration contract or binding job offer that must be attached to the application for the visa;
- a health insurance for medical treatment and hospitalisation valid all over Italy for the entire period of stay;
- appropriate documentation regarding living arrangements covering the entire duration of the visa, such as a lease contract duly registered;
- previous experience of at least 6 months in the working activity to be performed as a digital nomad or remote worker;
- a subordinate employment or collaboration contract or binding offer, in the case of remote workers, to carry out the said highly specialized activity, pursuant to Article 27-quater, paragraph 1, of the Immigration Consolidated Act. Similarly to the EU blue card, the employment contract proposal or binding employment offer must indicate the employee’s annual salary, which must not be lower than the salary provided for by the applicable national collective agreements, and in any case, not lower than the average gross annual salary per employee unit as indicated by ISTAT (the Italian National Statistics Institute);
- a declaration signed by the employer or client, accompanied by a copy of an identification document, certifying the absence of criminal convictions against the remote worker, or digital nomad, in the last five years for the offences referred to in Article 22, paragraph 5-bis, of the Immigration Consolidated Act (including aiding and abetting illegal immigration into Italy and illegal immigration from Italy to other states).
Procedure and duration of the residence permit
The procedure commences by requesting an entry visa at the Italian Consulate or Embassy in the foreign country of residence of the applicant. In this phase, the requirements above listed must be proven.
Within eight days of entering Italy with a digital nomad’s visa, foreign individuals must apply for the relevant Italian residence permit.
The documentation to be produced in the aim to obtain the residence permit is the same as that submitted to the competent Italian Consulate or Embassy at the time of application for the entry visa, which is returned duly stamped in view of the filing of it at the provincial police headquarters (Questura).
The residence permit will indicate the wording “digital nomad—remote worker” and will be issued for a period not exceeding one year, but with the possibility of annual renewal. This is subject to the conditions and requirements that allowed the issue of the visa to continue to be met, including the health insurance to be also renewed every year.
The holder of an Italian visa for digital nomads/remote workers is eligible for family reunification, and family members can obtain a residence permit of the same duration as that of the involved individual performing remotely.
The provincial police headquarters (Questura) communicates the issuance of the residence permit, forwarding a copy of the employment or collaboration contract, also by telematic means, to the competent territorial Labour Office (Ispettorato Territoriale del Lavoro) for the needed assessments.
Checks on compliance with the provisions on social security contribution and on tax regulations
The issuance of the residence permit is notified to INPS (the Italian Authority on Social Security Contribution) and to INAIL (the National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work).
The provisions of bilateral social security conventions, if any in force, between Italy and the country of origin of the involved individuals apply to the holders of a visa for digital nomads or to the remote workers who will be allowed to remain subject to the social security legislation of their non-EU country, although carrying out activities in Italy. In the lack of such conventions, in relation to the duration of the residence permit, the social security and insurance rules under the Italian law are applicable: as a general remark, given the performance in Italy, contributions must be paid in this territory, regardless of the foreign identity of the employer or principal.
With reference to tax-related matters, if an individual spends more than 183 days in a country, he/she is obliged to comply with the tax rules of the country in which he/she is located, thus paying taxes in that country. Therefore, the police headquarters (Questura) generate and communicate the tax code to the individuals requesting the digital nomad visa, when the residence permit is issued, while self-employed digital nomads can apply to the local tax office for a VAT number. Ascertained infringements of tax provisions by the Revenue Agency can imply the revocation of the residence permit.
5. The European AI Act and its Implications on Italian Labour Law
The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is aimed at establishing harmonized rules for the development, deployment, and usage of artificial intelligence (AI) within the European Union. As other EU directives already did in the past, it introduces a risk-based regulatory framework intended to address the socio-economic benefits of AI while mitigating risks to fundamental rights and safety. For Italy, this regulation is especially relevant given its significant labour law impacts and the potential transformations AI can bring to employment practices.
How does it work?
The AI Act adopts a risk-based approach, categorizing AI systems into four levels of risk: minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable. Systems falling into the “unacceptable risk” category are outright prohibited, while high-risk systems, which include many workplace-related applications, are subject to stringent requirements.
The annexes, particularly Annex III, identify high-risk AI systems. These include those used in employment, worker management, and access to self-employment opportunities. Examples include systems for recruitment, performance evaluation, task allocation, promotion decisions, and monitoring worker behaviour.
What is the AI Act’s foreseeable impacts on Italian Labour Law?
The implementation of the AI Act will predictably interact significantly with Italian labour law, in different areas and especially those regarding employees’ protections during recruitment, the involvement of labour unions; workers’ privacy and data protection, and employees’ misclassification and the gig economy.
Firstly, Italian labour law is grounded in constitutional guarantees of non-discrimination and equality (Article 3 of the Italian Constitution), with several specific provisions against discrimination in the workplace. High-risk AI systems, like those used for filtering resumes or conducting video interviews, must comply with the transparency, fairness, and accountability measures stipulated in the AI Act. Employers will need to ensure these systems do not accidentally perpetuate bias or discrimination, a concern central to both EU and Italian anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, union involvement is critical in shaping employment rules in Italy. The AI Act emphasizes human oversight in AI usage, which aligns with Italian laws that mandate consultation with labour unions for significant workplace changes. The use of AI in tasks like performance monitoring or job assignment could require prior consultation with unions to align with the applicable laws. Automatized decision-making processes used by the employers on employees’ task management and performance evaluation are already covered by specific union information obligations that will necessarily be harmonized with the new Regulation.
AI systems monitoring employee performance, in fact, interact with Italy’s robust privacy laws, governed by the GDPR and related national rules. The AI Act’s provisions for transparency and documentation (Annex IV) support these privacy protections, ensuring AI does not infringe on data protection rules and employees’ rights to a private digital sphere. Again, the AI Act should coexist with the existing GDPR provisions on data treatment. In this regard, Italian Privacy Authority has already sanctioned OpenAI in relation to the data set used for ChatGPT training that was considered as not compliant with the Italian data protection framework.
In addition, Italy has ongoing debates around the classification of gig workers, with court rulings sometimes redefining employment relationships. AI tools used in gig platforms for task allocation or rating systems may come under scrutiny to ensure compliance with labour standards and fair treatment principles, as emphasized in Annex III.
What is the AI Act’s main challenges and opportunities?
The implementation of the AI Act introduces a mix of hurdles and avenues for improvement within the Italian labour law framework. On the one hand, compliance with the stringent provisions for high-risk AI systems may result in significant financial and administrative burdens for businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which are the backbone of Italy’s economy. The obligation to ensure continuous oversight, along with the necessity for constant system updates to align with regulatory requirements, could impose operational strains that could potentially be an obstacle to innovation and may slow AI adoption in certain industries.
Companies that have lower digital confidence may also be reluctant in using AI systems because of the obligation established in Article 4 of the AI Act that requires deployers of AI systems (employers in such a case) to «take measures to ensure, to their best extent, a sufficient level of AI literacy of their staff and other persons dealing with the operation and use of AI systems on their behalf,» taking into account all the characteristics of the context the AI systems are to be used in.
On the other hand, the AI Act offers substantial opportunities to redefine trust and equity within the workplace. By enforcing robust accountability standards for AI, the regulation could strengthen worker confidence in automated systems. This regulatory clarity can serve to harmonize technological advancement with labour rights, ultimately cultivating a workplace environment that embraces innovation while upholding fairness and dignity. Additionally, the AI Act aligns well with Italy’s broader ambition of maintaining a strong social dialogue, fostering a culture of ethical and responsible AI usage that benefits both employers and employees.
