This was recently recalled by the Court of Ancona in its ruling of 1 March 2025.

The Court of Ancona, considering the dismissal unjustified and arbitrary, ordered the defendant company to reinstate the worker.

The decision was made on the illegitimacy of a dismissal based on absences and the employer’s refusal to accept the withdrawal of agile work.

The employment relationship at issue, established at the time of covid, provided that work would be performed 3 days a week in agile mode for the first two years (and 4 days thereafter).

The employer undertook to comply with certain basic criteria in the definition of the agile work pact, while the employee would be allowed to use his own electronic equipment.

Finally, the agile working pact was to be considered an open-ended agreement, with the employer not being able to exercise the right of withdrawal.

The smart working provisions are considered by the Court to be valid and effective even without a formal ‘agile working pact’.

Following a general return to pre-Covid activities, the defendant company communicated the withdrawal of the agile work mode, requesting a return to traditional work.

In this context, as highlighted in the judgment of the Court of Ancona, the employee’s conduct, which consisted of repeated absences from the premises or refusal to accept the employer’s communication concerning the ‘withdrawal from the agile work mode’, could not justify dismissal.

In the course of its analysis, the Court pointed out that ‘the fact that the “agile work pact” was never formalised does not preclude the effectiveness of the (unconditional) provisions already contained in the Verbale; moreover, the fact that the employment relationship continued for more than three years according to the established modalities confirms that the object of the contract was in any case sufficiently determined or determinable’.

In addition, “the interpretation according to which Article 19 of Law 81/2017, which provides for and regulates the “withdrawal” from the “agile work modality”, would be a “mandatory rule” that excludes the possibility of more favourable agreements for the worker, does not appear to be acceptable’. The judge also recalled that ‘the Verbale is clear and unconditional in excluding the right of withdrawal and therefore it is not relevant that such exclusion was motivated by a return to “pre-Covid activities” (and the consequent lack of a “legal obligation” to grant smart working)’.

The firm remains at your disposal for any clarifications.