Intervention

Trade union representation at a standstill and accredited healthcare awaits clear rules

The May Day decree consciously avoids addressing the issue of trade union representativeness, once again leaving employers in the lurch

by Giovanni Costantino*

 mninni - stock.adobe.com

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

Train gone, opportunity lost. A step forward towards a more transparent and reliable system of industrial relations was expected and, instead, the May Day decree (Decree-Law 62/2026), barring resounding changes during conversion, consciously avoids addressing the issue of trade union representativeness, once again leaving employers in the lurch.

The new legal text, in fact, does not clarify what is meant by 'comparatively most representative organisations', a notion that becomes even more important today, given that, with the laudable intention of eliminating contractual dumping phenomena, the decree entrusts precisely these organisations with the task of defining the 'fair wage' for the entire sector.

Loading...

On the other hand, even before Law Decree 62/2026 came into force, it was clear that there was an urgent need to address this issue, at least since Constitutional Court ruling No. 156/2025 declared illegitimate Article 19 of the Workers' Statute in the part in which it does not allow the establishment of RSAs also to trade unions that are 'comparatively more representative at the national level', even though they are not signatories to the collective agreement applied nor participants in negotiations.

The Court started from essentially shared thoughts, but identified a solution that is bound to cause confusion among employers, to whom it entrusts the (impossible) task of assessing the degree of representativeness of each trade union. Indeed, employers do not have the necessary tools for such a check. What is needed is reliable data, uniform criteria, and a complete and up-to-date information framework. None of this is available today, and it is not to be expected that the Court of Cassation, which is due to rule on the matter in a few days, will be able to resolve this uncertainty.

The problem is particularly acute in private health care, where not only the traditional trade union confederations operate, but also other unions that have consolidated their role over the decades, going so far as to sign important collective bargaining agreements. It is also common for other organisations, boasting a good degree of (certified) representativeness in the public sector, to try to pass this on to the private sector.

The result is a paradox. In order to prevent employer discretion from becoming an obstacle to trade union freedom, the Court has ended up giving employers an even broader evaluative power (or rather duty). The risk is that of an escalation of litigation and company conflicts. The Constitutional Court, aware of this fragility, invited the legislature to intervene on the issue in order to outline a framework capable of enhancing effective representativeness in the company.

Moreover, regulatory intervention cannot fail to take account of representativeness at the national level. In fact, it is necessary to create a stable link between the different levels, so as to prevent decentralised bargaining from developing along lines that differ from those established at the national level, being conducted by trade union organisations other than the unions that negotiated the collective bargaining agreement and that, potentially, might not share its choices and mediations.

The need for regulation emerged forcefully during the Round Table organised a few days ago on the subject by COSTANTINO&partners, under the patronage of Aris. Representatives of the academic, trade union, and managerial worlds, albeit in the diversity of the solutions and methodologies proposed, all recognised, after an in-depth debate, the need to arrive at a regulation for private healthcare as well.

Not only. The sector is also awaiting the overall revision of the rules on accreditation with the SSN provided for in Article 36 of Law 193/2024, against which the competition rules enacted in 2022 were rightly suspended until 31 December 2026.

Labour relations and accreditation are not separate worlds, but influence each other and contribute to defining the quality of work and services. For this reason, continuing to intervene by individual pieces - a ruling today, a regulatory change tomorrow - risks producing an incoherent mosaic, incapable of withstanding the challenges awaiting the sector.

A systemic vision is needed. A reform that holds together the protection of workers, the right to health of patients and the freedom of economic initiative. It is a difficult balance, but one that can no longer be postponed. The time for marginal corrections is over. Now more than ever we need a reform that looks at the whole system

*Expert in labour law in health care, Aris delegation leader for the renewal of collective agreements in private health care

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti