The provision to employees to wear the uniform while on duty, in fact, is employers in the provision of the nature of remuneration. In the event of default to the contractual obligation assumed, then, the company must compensate (Court of Cassation, Section work, Case No. 26234/09, filed Dec. 15)
Conduct of trial - a ruling filed Aug. 25, 2005, the Court of Appeal of Rome, partial reform of the decision dated January 16, 2003 the Court of that city (which had dismissed the applications), has condemned the MET.RO Spa (formerly Spa Metroferro already Cotral SPA) FA to pay his employees used the sum of 826.33 euros, as well as accessories of the law, in consideration of garments annually by the company due - According to agreements with the unions in June 9, 1972, to March 1, 1990 and June 1, 1990 - and not delivered, as requested by the employee for the period 1983-1999. In this regard, the Court stated that it supported the territorial qualification made by this Court in its Judgement No 9154, 1998, regarding the nature of salary benefit provided by the agreements mentioned (ie the provision each year to employees of clothing to wear during the service) with a consequent right to damages in case of default. Default which the Court found in the behavior of society, considering not grounds for arguing this defense according to which the non-delivery of clothing would depend on the failure to collect the same from interested parties within the deadline, but by limiting the extent of compensation than that required in the alternative (which took account of the settlement agreement of June 1, 1990 for the period from 1983 to the entire previous year 1990), "cleansed of the issue on prescription, having considered the prospect of COTRAL also established that the damage can not consist purely and sempliciter at the equivalent of the clothing in question, for the purchase of which was, moreover, provided a cost-sharing also by workers. " Against that decision to appeal FA now proposed, with a single article motivo.Resiste the application for revocation of Judgement, the METRO spa ritual defense. Reasons for Decision
Col FA action concerns the infringement and false application of Articles. 2943 and 2948 cod. Civ., January 8, 1931, RD, No 148, Art. 10, all. A) as amended by Law July 24, 1957, No 633 as well as the failure, inadequate and contradictory grounds of the appeal. In answering (partly according to the scheme of the contested decision) the objection of limitation, the Territorial Court has omitted to consider, in accepting the alternative claim, that, like the agreement of June 1, 1990, in acts relating thereto The agreements of July 9, 1972 and March 1, 1990 were partially waived with the expectation of a reduced distribution of clothing, "to amnesty for past dues until the end of the year 1990." Therefore, given the nature of settlement, and novation agreement, the plea of \u200b\u200bprescription (ten, according to the applicant, in the case of a breach of contractual obligations) was believed to be unfounded, the limitation period from June 1, 1990 and having been interrupted, as evidenced by acts, with questions of April 22, 1991, 20 December 1995 and August 9, 2000, since then the application instituting the proceedings was served on June 21, 2001. Finally, the applicants would not understand the reasoning followed to reach the reduced amount of € 826.33 compared to that, while required in the alternative, Euro 3,150.39, since no indication of the time period to which it relates and the compensation of the criteria for its determination. The applicant concludes with the request for annulment of the contested decision, by any legal consequences. The action is infondato.Va immediately noted that the applicant, under the rule of self-sufficiency of the appeal (on which see., Most recently, Cass. Nn. 5043/09, 4823/09 and 338/09), should have inferred to have promptly countered, with the findings of fact and law proposed today, the plea of \u200b\u200bprescription five years proposed by the company at first instance and on appeal to have renewed its normal course defense. Failing that, the defenses must be considered late and can not find entry here of legitimacy. As for the deduction of incomprehensibility of the decision, once accepted the plea of \u200b\u200blimitation of five years, the appellate courts have settled the amount for the last five years from the commencement of the action, which occurred in May-June 2001, then starting from 1996 and until the year 1999 (end date of the application), following the criteria set out at the same time indicated in the application and appeal, namely by multiplying the value of L. 500,000 given by F. annually due to the dress for four years from 1996 to 1999 are considered not to be used and the result of purifying 20% (representing the percentage of costs borne by the worker's clothing), as in fact already made in the application instituting the proceedings (for which the consideration is unnecessary if the Court declares to accept about the prospects of companies) and again in overall terms in the conclusions taken on appeal and reported in the sentence. The result, L. Corresponds to 1,600,000 Euro 826.33 paid in the sentence. Although a very brief reasons, the sentence thus contains all the elements in order to understand the correct reasoning in determining the quantum paid. The appeal must be rejected. The exhibition and all the above arguments support the decision of the parties to fully compensate the costs of this review.
PQM
The Court rejects the appeal, the parties fully offset the costs of this review.
Decided in Rome, November 11, 2009.
deposited at the Registry December 15, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment