Employment: ‘navigators’ should be paid as employees

Navigators were to be treated as employees. This is the message that emerges from judgement 23436/2026, published on 17 July, in which the Court of Cassation, Labour Section, ruling on an appeal lodged by 13 individuals, intervened in the case, clarifying a legal issue that had remained unresolved since the introduction of Citizenship Income.

The Court of Cassation has, in fact, criticised the decision of the Turin Court of Appeal, establishing a principle set to have an impact on the entire case: the fact that the legislature had provided for the use of ‘collaborative assignments’ was not sufficient to preclude the application of the rules governing externally organised collaborations laid down in Article 2 of Legislative Decree 81/2015.

According to the Court of Cassation, the legislation on the Citizenship Income had provided for the recruitment of ‘navigators’ through collaborative contracts with Anpal Servizi to carry out support activities for the Job Centres. In practice, however, these collaborators worked on a permanent basis within the Employment Centres, used the tools made available by the administration, followed the same work organisation and carried out tasks that were closely integrated with those of civil servants. It was precisely these working arrangements that gave rise to the legal dispute brought by numerous ‘navigators’, who sought recognition of the protections afforded to employees in a subordinate employment relationship.

The most interesting aspect of the decision, however, concerns the origin of the whole affair. The ‘mess’ stems from a legislative provision that was worded imprecisely. Article 12 of Decree-Law 4/2019 merely provided for the establishment of ‘collaborative assignments’, without specifically regulating the nature of the relationship or introducing a genuine special contractual arrangement. This wording gave rise to the misinterpretation that it would be sufficient to classify the relationship as collaboration in order to automatically exempt it from the rules governing externally organised collaborations. The Court of Cassation refutes this interpretation: that provision did not introduce any special regime, but simply referred to the general regulations in force.

Furthermore, the Court of Cassation ruled out the possibility that the company-level trade union agreement entered into by Anpal Servizi in 2015 could constitute the exemption provided for by law, because it was not a national sectoral collective agreement signed by the organisations with the highest level of representation and, above all, it had been concluded years before the role of ‘navigator’ was established. The principle established is therefore clear: the mere legislative provision for collaborative assignments is not sufficient to exclude the application of Article 2 of Legislative Decree 81/2015. If the relationship meets the criteria for externally organised collaborative work, the protections provided for employment apply, unless there is an exception expressly provided for by law and strictly in accordance with the required criteria.