The object of the sentence no matter 3871/2011 concerning an employee of the Ministry of Justice employing temporary which was denied the opportunity to receive paid leave for study, given the temporary nature of their employment.
According to the Ministry of Justice, in fact, pursuant to art. 13 of the Negotiable collective agreement of 16 May 2001, these permits could be granted only to staff employed on a permanent.
The employee, believing their rights violated, sue the directors and membership of the Court of merit, following the request of the employee, noted that the provision of collective bargaining that literally provided the study permits for workers a time limit could not be interpreted as excluding, however, employees hired as temporary una clausola così intesa si sarebbe posta in evidente contrasto con il principio di non discriminazione sancito dalla direttiva CE n. 70 del 1999 e dall’art. 6 del d.lgs. n. 368 del 2001, attuativo di tale direttiva.
La decisione, confermata anche in appello, veniva quindi sottoposta al vaglio della Suprema Corte dal Ministero della Giustizia.
La Corte di Cassazione, uniformandosi alle precedenti pronunce di merito, ha affermato che l’esclusione dai permessi di studio non può conseguire in maniera automatica dal fatto che il contratto preveda un termine di durata (e questo nel rispetto del principio di non discriminazione, come recepito nel D.Lgs. n. 368 del 2001, art. 6), but, on the contrary, the failure to recognize the temporary workers provided treatments for permanent workers is permitted only on the basis of an objective incompatibility refers, in fact, the nature of the individual relationship to an end.
The Court therefore held, in this case, the following principle of law: " According to an interpretation consistent with the principle of non-discrimination of temporary workers, laid down in Legislative Decree no. September 6, 2001, No 368, Art. 6, in implementation of EU Directive 70/1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, must be regarded as art. 13 of the Negotiable on 16 May 2001 concerning the sector ministries and integration of the previous National Collective Bargaining Agreement of 16 February 1999, providing for the availability of paid leave for study, the extent of 150 hours, by employees with employment-time unlimited does not mean that the same permissions should be granted to employees on fixed term, unless there is objective incompatibility in relation to the nature of the single-term contract, nor the exclusion of the benefit could be justified, because the mere affixing of the duration of contract, the absence of a specific interest of the public Directors to the cultural elevation of the employees, since the use of permits to study ignores the existence of such an interest on the part of the employer, public or private, being traceable to fundamental human rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution (art. 2:34 Cost .) and the Convention on Human Rights (ECHR Article 2 of the Additional Protocol), and protected by law in relation to the rights of student workers (Law No. 300 of 1970, Article 10). .