Legislative Decree No. 23/2015 (italy): Dismissal Remedies & “increasing Protections” Contracts, 2026 Update

Introduction: Why D.Lgs. 23/2015 still matters in 2026

Legislative decree 23/2015 italy remains the single most consequential piece of dismissal law that any employer hiring in Italy must understand. Enacted as one of the cornerstones of the so-called Jobs Act reforms, it introduced the contratto a tutele crescenti (increasing protections contract) and recalibrated the remedies available when a dismissal is found unlawful, shifting the default outcome for many workers away from reinstatement and toward calibrated monetary compensation. For HR directors, in-house counsel and cross-border employers, the practical stakes are high: a mishandled termination can expose a company to indemnities running to several months of salary, or in defined cases to a court order to reinstate the employee.

This guide sets out, in plain English, what the decree covers, who it applies to, the remedies it provides, and how employers should respond when a dismissal is challenged in 2026.

It is important to note that the framework has been affected by subsequent case law, including rulings of the Constitutional Court (Corte Costituzionale), most notably its decisions on the original indemnity formula, which have reshaped how compensation is determined. For bespoke advice on a live matter, GLE can connect you with specialist counsel through our Employment lawyers, Italy practice overview.

How Italy’s labour law framework fits together (statutes, CCNLs and case law)

To understand the place of legislative decree 23/2015 italy within employment law, it helps to see the wider architecture. Italian labour law is not contained in a single code. Instead, dismissal rights and remedies flow from an interlocking system of primary legislation, national collective bargaining agreements and judicial interpretation.

Statute versus collective agreements

Primary statutes set the floor of protection. The Civil Code governs the employment relationship in general terms, while specific statutes, including Law No. 604/1966 on individual dismissals, the Workers’ Statute (Law No. 300/1970, whose Article 18 historically governed reinstatement), and Legislative Decree No. 23/2015, regulate when and how an employer may lawfully terminate.

Layered over the statute are the contratti collettivi nazionali di lavoro (CCNLs), sector-wide collective agreements that frequently determine notice periods, disciplinary procedures, severance treatment and the classification of employees. Because a CCNL can improve upon statutory minimums and shape disciplinary grounds, the applicable agreement must always be checked before any termination. Two employers of identical size may face materially different obligations depending on the CCNL that binds them.

The role of the courts and the labour inspectorate

Employment disputes are heard by specialised labour sections of the ordinary courts, with appeals up to the Corte Suprema di Cassazione. The Court of Cassation’s rulings are decisive in practice because they settle how ambiguous statutory language is applied, particularly on the boundary between indemnity and reinstatement. The Constitutional Court has also intervened directly in the operation of the decree. Separately, the Ispettorato Nazionale del Lavoro (National Labour Inspectorate) enforces compliance and can inspect, sanction and investigate employer conduct. Reading the statute alone is never enough: the operative rules are the statute as interpreted by the courts and applied by the inspectorate.

Key provisions of legislative decree 23/2015 italy, a plain-English summary

The decree was published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale and forms the legal basis of the increasing protections regime. Its consolidated text is available on Normattiva, the official statutory database, which should be treated as the authoritative reference for exact article numbers and wording.

Scope and scope limits

The defining feature of the decree is its temporal scope: it applies to employees hired under an open-ended contract on or after the date the decree took effect (7 March 2015). Workers whose open-ended employment predates the decree generally remain under the earlier remedial regime centred on Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute. This creates a lasting two-track system inside many workforces, long-tenured staff under the older rules and more recent hires under the tutela crescente regime, which employers must map carefully before taking any decision.

The two remedy regimes introduced by the Jobs Act

At the heart of legislative decree 23/2015 italy is a deliberate narrowing of when reinstatement is available. The decree distinguishes between:

• Reinstatement (reintegra). Reserved for defined and serious categories, principally dismissals that are null, discriminatory, or oral, and certain disciplinary dismissals where the alleged material fact simply did not occur.
• Monetary indemnity (indennità). The default remedy for the majority of unlawful dismissals, calculated by reference primarily to the employee’s length of service, so that protection generally increases with seniority.

This structural choice, indemnity as the norm, reinstatement as the exception, is what makes the regime attractive to employers seeking predictability and controversial among worker advocates.

The tutela crescente concept explained

Tutela crescente (increasing protection) means that the compensation an unlawfully dismissed employee receives is designed to grow with tenure. Rather than a binary right to the job back, most employees hold a right to a graduated sum of money keyed to how long they have worked. The policy aim was to reduce employer uncertainty about the cost of a wrong decision, thereby encouraging permanent hiring. Following the Constitutional Court’s 2018 ruling (No. 194/2018), the courts retain discretion in fixing the amount within the statutory range, so length of service is a central but not the sole factor. In practice, the concept turns dismissal-risk management into a more quantifiable exercise than under the older regime.

Who is covered and who is excluded (thresholds, fixed-term and managers)

Coverage under legislative decree 23/2015 italy is not uniform. Several categories of worker and employer attract different treatment, and getting the classification wrong is one of the most common, and expensive, mistakes.

Small employers (under 15 employees), practical impact

The 15-employee threshold is pivotal. Employers below the size threshold face a reduced remedial framework: the indemnity payable for an unlawful dismissal is lower, and the availability of reinstatement is more restricted still. For a small business, this materially reduces the financial downside of a contested dismissal, but it does not eliminate exposure, because null and discriminatory dismissals remain subject to reinstatement regardless of headcount. Counting employees correctly, across the relevant organisational unit, is therefore a threshold compliance task in every case.

Fixed-term workers, managers and the public sector

• Fixed-term employees. The tutela crescente regime is built around open-ended contracts; fixed-term relationships are governed by their own rules on term, renewal and conversion, and unlawful use of fixed terms can itself generate liability.
• Managers (dirigenti). Senior managers historically sit outside the ordinary reinstatement framework and are protected largely through collective agreements and the concept of “unjustified” dismissal, with compensation frequently negotiated by reference to the applicable CCNL for executives.
• Public sector. Public employment follows a distinct statutory track and should not be assumed to mirror the private-sector Jobs Act remedies.

Because CCNLs vary these outcomes, the applicable collective agreement must be consulted alongside the decree in every borderline case.

Remedies available for unlawful dismissal under legislative decree 23/2015 italy

The remedial menu is the practical core of the statute. Understanding which remedy attaches to which category of defect allows an employer to price risk and decide whether to defend, settle or withdraw a dismissal.

Monetary indemnity, amounts and calculation

For the ordinary case of an unlawful but non-discriminatory dismissal, the remedy is a monetary indemnity expressed in months of the employee’s last reference salary and linked to length of service, within statutory minimum and maximum limits. Following the Constitutional Court’s intervention, the court determines the precise number of months within that range, taking length of service and other relevant factors into account rather than applying a rigid automatic formula. Where a dismissal is unlawful only because of a procedural or formal defect, rather than a substantive lack of justification, a separate, generally lower indemnity applies, reflecting that the underlying decision may have been sound but the process was flawed.

Reinstatement versus indemnity, when each applies

Reinstatement is the exception. It is triggered principally where the dismissal is:

• discriminatory, or otherwise null under the law;
• issued orally rather than in writing; or
• disciplinary in nature but based on a material fact that is shown not to have existed.

Where reinstatement is ordered, the employer must reinstate the employee and, in the qualifying categories, also pay compensation for the intervening period, subject to the deductions and caps the law provides. In every other case of unlawfulness, the employee’s protection converts into the monetary indemnity described above rather than a right to the job. The Court of Cassation’s decisions are the practical guide to where this line falls, particularly on what constitutes a “material fact that did not occur” in disciplinary cases, an issue that continues to generate litigation.

Mitigating factors and compensation caps

Several factors shape the final figure. The statutory floor and ceiling frame the range; length of service and other criteria drive the amount within it; and in reinstatement cases, sums the employee earned or could have earned elsewhere during the litigation may reduce the compensation owed. Because the framework combines fixed parameters with fact-specific variables, two superficially similar dismissals can settle at very different numbers, which is exactly why early legal assessment pays for itself.

Practical employer decision tree: how to respond to a dismissal claim

When a dismissal is challenged, a structured response protects the employer’s position and controls cost. The following decision tree translates the statute into an operational workflow.

Step 1: Review the grounds and the evidence

Begin by classifying the dismissal: was it disciplinary, economic (a genuine business or organisational reason), or potentially tainted by a prohibited motive such as discrimination or retaliation? Assemble the documentary record, the disciplinary notice, warnings, performance data, the business case for any economic dismissal, and proof of every procedural step. The classification determines which remedy is at risk, and the strength of the evidence determines whether the dismissal is defensible at all.

Step 2: Consider settlement and conciliation

Italian law encourages amicable resolution, including protected conciliation procedures designed to settle dismissal disputes efficiently. A conciliated exit can convert uncertain litigation exposure into a defined, agreed payment, often with tax and reputational advantages. For borderline cases, where the evidence is imperfect or the remedy uncertain, a negotiated settlement is frequently the lowest-risk outcome. Weigh the likely indemnity range against the cost, delay and disruption of contested proceedings before choosing to defend.

Step 3: Timing and procedural steps

Dismissal disputes run on strict clocks. An employee must contest the dismissal within a limited window and then commence proceedings within a further deadline; the employer must in turn respond promptly and preserve evidence from the outset. Missing or mishandling these steps can weaken an otherwise strong case. Map the relevant deadlines the moment a challenge is received and calendar every date.

Step 4: Termination letter and documentation checklist

Whether reviewing a past dismissal or preparing a new one, the paper trail is decisive. A defensible file should include:

• a written dismissal letter stating the grounds clearly and specifically;
• evidence that any required disciplinary procedure was followed, with the employee given the chance to respond;
• the documented business rationale where the dismissal is economic;
• proof of correct calculation and payment of amounts due on termination; and
• confirmation that the applicable CCNL procedures were observed.

Employers who need a structured tool can use a dedicated internal termination checklist to standardise this process across the organisation.

Interaction with EU directives and other national updates

Dismissal risk in 2026 cannot be assessed in isolation from the wider EU employment agenda, because several directives shape the context in which a termination is judged.

Work-life balance, transparent conditions and the right to disconnect

The EU work-life balance framework strengthens protections around parental and carers’ leave, and dismissals connected to the exercise of these rights carry heightened risk of being characterised as discriminatory or retaliatory, squarely within the categories that attract reinstatement. The transparent and predictable working conditions framework increases obligations to inform workers of essential terms, and gaps in documentation can undermine an employer’s defence. Developing expectations around a “right to disconnect” similarly affect how conduct and performance are assessed. The European Commission’s employment and social affairs resources are the reference point for the current state of these instruments.

Practical impact on dismissal risk

The combined effect is that employers must be alert to the reason behind any dismissal, not merely its process. A termination that coincides with a protected leave request, a complaint about working conditions, or the assertion of a statutory right invites scrutiny. Under legislative decree 23/2015 italy, that scrutiny matters enormously, because a finding of discriminatory or null dismissal moves the case out of the predictable indemnity band and into the reinstatement category regardless of employer size.

Comparison: legislative decree 23/2015 italy (tutela crescente) versus the pre-Jobs Act Article 18 regime

The clearest way to grasp the reform is to place the two regimes side by side. The table below is an employer decision aid, not a substitute for case-specific advice.

Calculating likely indemnities, worked examples

The following illustrations show how the tutela crescente logic translates into outcomes. They are simplified for clarity: the exact amounts in any real case depend on the applicable CCNL, the precise reference salary, statutory floors and ceilings, and judicial discretion. Always obtain a case-specific calculation.

Example 1: small employer (10 employees), unfair dismissal

A firm with 10 staff dismisses an employee for alleged poor performance, but the disciplinary file is thin and the dismissal is found unjustified. Because the employer is below the size threshold, the applicable indemnity band is the reduced one for small employers, and reinstatement is not available for this type of defect. The exposure is therefore a defined, lower sum of months of salary rather than a return to work, a comparatively contained outcome that often favours a modest negotiated settlement.

Example 2: medium employer, economic dismissal

A company above the size threshold dismisses an employee on genuine economic grounds, but a court finds the business justification insufficiently documented. The remedy is the standard tutela crescente indemnity, linked to the employee’s length of service within the statutory range. Here the lesson is procedural: a well-evidenced business case might have made the dismissal defensible, while the documentation gap converts a legitimate commercial decision into a payable indemnity.

Example 3: reinstatement ordered, cost comparison

An employee is dismissed shortly after raising a discrimination complaint, and a court concludes the dismissal was discriminatory. This falls squarely within the reinstatement category, regardless of employer size. The employer must reinstate the employee and pay compensation for the intervening period, subject to statutory rules and any deductions for alternative earnings. Compared with the indemnity-only outcomes above, the combined cost of reinstatement plus back-pay is typically the most expensive result, and it illustrates why the motive behind a dismissal deserves the closest scrutiny.

Procedural timelines, evidence standards and common pitfalls

Even a substantively sound dismissal can fail on procedure. This section highlights the operational discipline that protects employers under legislative decree 23/2015 italy.

Key procedural deadlines

Dismissal disputes are governed by short, sequential deadlines: the employee must first contest the dismissal within a defined period (traditionally 60 days from communication) and then bring the claim to court within a further period (traditionally 180 days). Employers should treat the arrival of any challenge as starting a clock and should not rely on informal extensions. Because the precise windows and their calculation carry real consequences, verify each deadline against the current statutory position at the moment a dispute arises.

Evidence standards

The employer generally bears the burden of proving the justification for the dismissal, whether disciplinary or economic. Contemporaneous documentation is far more persuasive than reconstructed narratives: dated warnings, signed acknowledgements, performance records and a documented business rationale. Where discrimination is alleged, the evidential dynamic shifts, and the employer must be prepared to demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.

Common employer mistakes and how to avoid them

• Misclassifying the employee’s regime. Applying tutela crescente to a pre-decree hire, or vice versa, distorts the risk assessment from the outset.
• Miscounting headcount. An incorrect view of the 15-employee threshold changes both the indemnity band and the availability of reinstatement.
• Thin documentation. Vague dismissal letters and undocumented business cases are the leading cause of avoidable liability.
• Ignoring the CCNL. Overlooking collective agreement procedures can render an otherwise valid dismissal unlawful on procedural grounds.
• Acting near a protected event. Dismissing close to a leave request or complaint invites a discrimination or retaliation finding, and the reinstatement remedy that comes with it.

Conclusion and next steps: a compliance checklist for legislative decree 23/2015 italy

Legislative decree 23/2015 italy has reshaped dismissal risk into a more quantifiable exercise: monetary indemnity is the default, reinstatement the exception, and greater predictability the reward for employers who document decisions well. The practical priorities for any organisation operating in Italy in 2026 are clear.

• Classify correctly. Map each employee to the tutela crescente or pre-decree regime, and verify the 15-employee threshold.
• Document everything. Build a defensible file for every disciplinary and economic dismissal.
• Check the CCNL. Confirm collective-agreement procedures before acting.
• Screen for motive. Treat dismissals near protected leave, complaints or rights-assertion as high-risk.
• Model the exposure. Estimate the indemnity band early and weigh settlement against litigation.
• Respect the clocks. Calendar all deadlines the moment a challenge arrives.

For tailored advice on dismissal strategy, indemnity exposure or a live claim, connect with a specialist through the Employment lawyers, Italy practice page or find an employment lawyer in Italy through the GLE lawyer directory.

This article provides general information on legislative decree 23/2015 italy and is not legal advice. Employment outcomes turn on the specific facts, the applicable collective agreement and current case law. Obtain professional advice before acting on any matter described here.

Sources

1. Normattiva, official consolidated Italian legislation database (D.Lgs. 23/2015)
2. Gazzetta Ufficiale (official publication of the decree)
3. Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali
4. Ispettorato Nazionale del Lavoro
5. Corte Suprema di Cassazione
6. Corte Costituzionale
7. Ministero della Giustizia, general justice portal
8. European Commission, Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion