The Court of Cassation returns to the abuse of fixed-term contracts for teachers of religion

A new intervention by the Court of Cassation on the issue of the reiteration of fixed-term contracts for school staff and, in particular, for Catholic religious education teachers. In fact, the Court of Appeal of Venice had denied compensation for damages to some religious education teachers who had been the recipients of several fixed-term contracts, noting that Law 186/2003 provided for a staffing level lower than the so-called 'de facto staffing level', and therefore allowed for the systematic use of substitutes, due to the optional nature of religious instruction and the consequent unforeseeable variability of the relative needs. Such a circumstance would have been capable of preventing a breach of Directive 99/70 EC, constituting an 'objective reason' for the systematic use of flexible work. Moreover, according to the Veneto judges, the contracts had a duration of necessarily one year by express provision of the CCNL, and were renewed from year to year as long as the requirement of the so-called diocesan aptitude was met, without selection from the ranking list, enjoying, moreover, seniority increases that guaranteed their economic equality with tenured teachers.

Called upon once again to pronounce on the subject, with an order dated 10 April last, the Supreme Court of Cassation had the opportunity to reiterate the principles already stated in several previous interventions since 2022. According to the Judges of Piazza Cavour, in particular, in the special regime for the recruitment of teachers of religion, constitutes abuse in the use of fixed-term contracts both the prolongation of annual relationships with automatic renewal, or otherwise without solution of continuity for a period exceeding three school years, in the absence of calling the three-year competition as well as the discontinuous use of teachers, in certain years, for reasons of surplus to requirements, provided, in the latter case, that the total duration of fixed-term relationships exceeds three years, giving rise, in all these cases of abuse, to the right of teachers to compensation for the so-called Euro-unitary damage.

The Court of Cassation therefore ruled out that abuse can be prevented by the mere optional nature of religious instruction and the consequent unforeseeable variability of requirements, nor by the mere abstract possibility that some of the appointments conferred could have been justified by the existence of truly temporary needs, which is relevant only if and insofar as it is duly substantiated and proved by the Administration.