In the Spotlight

Dismissal via WhatsApp: yes to text messages, no to voice messages

The Court of Grosseto ruled that the notice given ‘verbally’ was invalid, whilst other judges considered the written notice to be valid

by Giampiero Falasca and Matteo Prioschi

11 November 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

In recent days, the Court of Grosseto ruled that a dismissal notified to an employee via a WhatsApp voice message was invalid; however, if the decision is communicated via a message, it is fully valid.

The written form required by Article 2 of Law 604/1966 concerning individual dismissals does not necessarily correspond to the traditional letter of dismissal, whether delivered in person or sent by registered post. Digital means may also be used to give notice of termination, provided that it is possible to verify the origin of the communication and that the employee is aware of the company’s decision.

From this point of view, a distinction must be made between dismissal notified by means of a traditional letter, dismissal communicated via a written message on WhatsApp, and dismissal conveyed via a voice message on the same app. The difference is substantial. Whilst a text message may satisfy the requirement for written form, a voice recording remains an oral communication, even when transmitted via a digital tool that allows it to be stored and played back.

One vowel isn’t enough

This is the conclusion reached in Judgment No. 323 of 16 September 2026 by the Court of Grosseto, which examined the case of a female employee dismissed by the company’s sole director via a voice message on WhatsApp. The judge classified this method as a verbal dismissal, which is considered legally non-existent and therefore incapable of terminating the employment relationship. It follows that the employee is not required to challenge the dismissal within the sixty-day time limit provided for in Article 6 of Law 604/1966. In the case in question, the Court ordered the reinstatement of the employee, compensation for damages and the payment of social security and welfare contributions.

Previous posts with written messages

The situation is different in the case of an individual dismissal notified via a written message on WhatsApp. The Court of Brindisi (judgement 52/2026) held that the requirement for written form had been met in the case of a Word file containing the decision to dismiss, sent via the app, even though it lacked the employer’s signature. According to the judge, the absence of a signature does not necessarily render the termination invalid when the document is produced in proceedings brought against the recipient.

A similar conclusion was reached by the Court of Catania (judgement 2261/2025), in a case where the employee had initially been informed verbally of the decision to dismiss him and subsequently asked to come to the company’s premises to sign the documents. After this step had not been completed, the employer sent a WhatsApp message urging the employee to sign the notice of dismissal and, subsequently, an email confirming that the dismissal had taken place.

The Court held that these communications satisfied the requirement for written notice, as they were sufficient to make the employer’s intention to terminate the employment relationship known to the employee. This is an approach already adopted by the Court of Catania itself, in an order dated 27 June 2017, and by the Florence Court of Appeal (judgement 629/2016).

The use of WhatsApp does not, however, constitute an exemption from the other requirements laid down by law. The notice must be attributable to the employer, must express an unequivocal intention to terminate the employment, and must comply with the obligation to specify the reasons. Furthermore, the validity of the form does not preclude the dismissal from being declared unlawful on the grounds of lack of just cause or justified reason.

Collective redundancies

A further distinction concerns collective redundancies, which are governed by Law 223/1991. In such cases, individual notice of termination must be preceded by the specific procedure for informing and consulting trade unions as laid down by law. The employer may not, therefore, replace this procedure with a simple message to employees. It remains possible to use digital tools to inform workers of company decisions, but an informal communication cannot replace the obligations required by collective agreements. Once the procedure has been completed, the dismissal must in any case be notified in writing to each worker.

The distinguishing factor, therefore, is not the medium used, but the nature of the communication and compliance with the requirements laid down by law: a letter and a written message may have the same formal validity, whilst a voice message, however recorded and storable it may be, cannot replace the written form.