Job

Underpaid workers rule resurfaces in Pnrr decree, controversy with trade unions and opposition

When a court finds that the remuneration received by the employee does not comply with Article 36 of the Constitution, the payment of accrued wage or contribution differences for the period prior to the date of the filing of the appeal is excluded, if it is a 'leader' contract, or an equivalent contract.

by Giorgio Pogliotti

(AdobeStock)

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

When a court finds that the remuneration received by the employee does not comply with Article 36 of the Constitution, the payment of accrued wage or contribution differences for the period prior to the date of filing of the appeal is excluded, if it is a 'leader' contract, or an equivalent contract.

Previous ones

In the draft of the Pnrr decree-law, the rule foreseen in the last draft of the Milleproroghe decree, but eliminated due to reservations of a formal nature expressed by the Quirinale, previously appeared in the Budget law, and before that a similar proposal by the president of the Chamber of Deputies Labour Committee, Walter Rizzetto (FdI), in a majority amendment to the former Ilva decree last summer, which was then removed.

Loading...

The reference is to situations of non-application, in court, of contractual provisions that provide for minimum economic treatment that does not comply with Article 36 of the Constitution, according to which 'the worker has the right to remuneration commensurate with the quantity and quality of his work' and 'sufficient to ensure for himself and his family a free and dignified existence', for the sector and the area in which the service is performed, taking into account the levels of labour productivity and the cost-of-living indices ascertained by ISTAT.

The two conditions for exemption

In essence, if the court finds, at any stage and level of the proceedings, that the worker's remuneration does not comply with Article 36 of the Constitution for the sector and area in which the service was performed, taking into account labour productivity levels and cost-of-living indices, the employer cannot be ordered to pay the differences in remuneration or contributions relating to the period prior to the worker's filing of the appeal, subject to two conditions.

The first is if it has applied the pay standard set out in the 'leading' collective agreement, i.e. national, territorial or company collective agreements entered into by comparatively more representative trade union associations at national level and company collective agreements entered into by their company trade union representatives or unitary trade union representation (Article 51 of Legislative Decree 15 June 2015, no. 81), The second condition for being exempt from the payment of arrears is that the employer must apply contracts that guarantee equivalent protections (Article 11 of the Public Contracts Code) for the sector and area of performance of the service, to the 'leader' contracts.

Opposition and trade unions oppose, companies applaud

The unions and the opposition protest: Maria Cecilia Guerra (PD) points out that 'this is the fourth time they have tried. First individual senators with nocturnal amendments, today even the government, always in regulatory vehicles where it should not be, such as this decree on the Pnrr. Never do they try to address the problem in an open confrontation with the social partners and in the relevant committees in Parliament. The rule is intended to limit the ability of judges to assess the congruity of the wages paid to workers with the dictates of Article 36 of the Constitution. The outcome would be paradoxical: the worker wins the case, but is not entitled to be reimbursed for the period during which he was underpaid'.

The CGIL speaks of 'unacceptable political doggedness': The rule, recalls Maria Grazia Gabrielli (confederal secretary of the CGIL) 'contradicts the rulings of the Supreme Court of Cassation on just pay, preventing the recognition of arrears if the 'leader' contract is applied. This weakens wage protection and cancels up to five years of arrears, in an unconstitutional manner'. Uil judges the government's intervention 'wrong in substance and dangerous in method'.

On the part of companies, 'the measure is considered necessary to restore legal certainty and predictability of labour costs in order to avoid a systemic risk'.

Inps: average wages have not regained purchasing power

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti