Collective dismissals in companies groups

On the subject of collective dismissals, when within several companies a single entity is established as the reference employer for them all the collective dismissal must involve all the employees in the entire group, even if there is no proof of the mixed use of the duties assigned to the dismissed employees.

In Order No. 32834 of Nov. 8th, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that if it is established that there is a single entity defined as employer among several companies, the collective dismissal initiated by one of them must involve all employees in the group, even if there is no proof of promiscuous use of the employees' activities.

Therefore, the Supreme Court, besides reporting the indicators through which it is possible to ascertain the existence of a single center of imputation among several companies, it also underlined that, once the interpenetration between corporate structures headed by separate entities is confirmed, there is no need to prove the promiscuous use of the individual employee's performance.

The case originated from the appeal of a dismissal implemented under a collective procedure, by an employee, who challenged its legitimacy, claiming that the procedure should have also involved the hired staff of the controlling company.

The court of merit declared the dismissal unlawful, due to the employer’s obligation to select the employees to be dismissed within the entire company complex.

The company then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the legitimacy of the dismissal on the basis of the lack of evidence of promiscuous use of the employee's activites, who had not worked for any of the other companies.

The claimant also stated that the intertwining of the activities of the controlling company and its subsidiary was not sufficient to the purpose of detecting the single center of interest and co-ownership of labour relations.

However, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal brought by the company on the grounds that, since the existence of the single center of imputation of interest between different companies was definitely established, the proof of promiscuity of work activity by the dismissed employee was not necessary, given that the mere existence of the single center implies, automatically, the referability of the work performance of each individual employee to the entire group.