In publicly controlled companies, containing personnel costs is a recurring objective, often driven by the need to maintain economic and financial balance.

However, the central issue is not economic, but legal.

Article 18, paragraph 2-bis, of Decree-Law No. 112/2008 and Article 19, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree No. 175/2016 (the Consolidated Law on Publicly Owned Companies – TUSP) impose sustainability objectives while reaffirming the private-law nature of the employment relationship.

This creates an inherent tension: public-law constraints on the one hand and the application of private labour law principles on the other.

Within this framework, a clear limitation applies: remuneration cannot be reduced unilaterally, except with the employee’s consent or where expressly provided for by law.

Favourable treatments that have been consistently granted over time become part of the employee’s contractual entitlements and cannot be curtailed solely for the purpose of reducing expenditure.

Case law from the Court of Cassation has consistently upheld this principle.

The Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation, in judgment No. 26283/2013, first reaffirmed the full applicability of private employment law rules to employment relationships within publicly owned companies, excluding any automatic consequences deriving merely from the public nature of the shareholder.

Consistent with this approach, the Court of Cassation, in judgment No. 20580/2015, clarified that remuneration components paid on a stable basis acquire a binding nature and cannot be revoked ad nutum.

More recently, in judgment No. 13535/2019, the Court reiterated that an employer cannot unilaterally make adverse changes to remuneration elements that have become consolidated within the contractual synallagma.

Accordingly, a reduction in remuneration can be considered legally sustainable only where one of the following conditions is met:

–   the existence of a mandatory statutory provision allowing such reduction;

–   a collective agreement;

–   a genuine organisational restructuring carried out in compliance with Article 2103 of the Italian Civil Code.

In the absence of these conditions, the legal risk is concrete: litigation, reinstatement of the original remuneration, and an order to pay salary differences.

A unilateral reduction in remuneration is not merely a managerial decision.

It is a measure that must withstand a strict test of legality.

In the absence of a clear statutory basis, trade union negotiation remains the most solid solution to reconcile financial sustainability with the protection of acquired rights.

The Law Firm remains available for any further clarification.