Fired for a spontaneous strike: the Supreme Court overturns everything

Strikes are a fundamental right of workers, protected by the Constitution, the 1970 Statute, and collective bargaining agreements. But even when they are carried out "spontaneously" and without the support of unions, can they be considered legal? Or do employees risk serious disciplinary consequences, up to and including dismissal?

A clear answer was provided by the Court of Cassation with ruling no. 11347 this year, which represents a major decision in industrial relations . Let's look at what it says and why it's important to know, especially if you plan to organize a collective and organized work strike as soon as possible.

The specific case and the strike without the support of trade unions

Let's briefly review the key points of the dispute. Three workers from a private company had decided to strike for one hour spontaneously , abstaining from performing their contractual duties but without participating in an initiative formally and officially proclaimed by the unions. In short, it was a free strike and an authentic reflection of their demands, against a salary deemed inadequate for their commitment to the company and their contractual status.

The economic motivation for the strike, along with the spontaneous decision, unconsensually agreed upon with either a union or the employer, were factors that pushed the company to order the dismissal for just cause. The employer, in particular, claimed that the absence was unjustified and detrimental to the company's organization and productivity.

One of the employees, however, challenged the dismissal, asking the labor judge to determine its retaliatory and discriminatory nature. Both the trial court and the court of appeal ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement and compensation.

Specifically, the second-instance judge confirmed the invalidity of the unilateral dismissal and explained that any employer's conduct that sanctions or dissuades workers from participating in a strike is contrary to the principles of Article 40 of the Constitution and Article 15 of the Workers' Statute. The latter, in particular, prohibits any corporate act that discriminates against the exercise of union rights, including the right to strike.

The Court of Cassation confirms the nullity of disciplinary dismissal under specific conditions

The employer appealed to the judges in Piazza Cavour, but the outcome remained unchanged. Dismissal is void even without a union, and the reasoning behind the Court of Appeal's ruling was legally and logically correct. This was the Supreme Court's ruling, concluding the legal dispute in question.

In particular, ruling no. 11347 establishes that the expulsion of an employee who participates in a spontaneous strike is ineffective if the abstention is:

• collective , involving more people without being a simple individual absence;
• aimed at protecting the common interests or goals of workers (in this case, that of obtaining the best pay);
• respectful of the constitutional limits of the right to strike , that is, without compromising other assets or constitutional rights of the same rank.

The ruling has the merit of strengthening and further clarifying a position already present in case law and reaffirms a fundamental principle : the right to strike belongs directly to workers, not only to trade unions. Therefore, for its exercise to be legitimate, intermediation or participation by trade unions is not necessary, and there can be no disciplinary consequences for participating in non-union protests.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the right to strike is fully recognized by Article 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees workers the possibility of collectively abstaining from work, but the exercise of this right is always independent of the formal proclamation of a temporary stoppage of work activities.

Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that no advance notice is required from the employer, except in the case of essential public services for the community, for which—as is well known—the specific rules of Law No. 146/1990 apply (including those regarding the guarantee of essential services).

The comprehensive protection provided by the judiciary

One of the most important passages of the ruling concerns the consequences of unfair and invalid dismissal . In fact, full reinstatement protection applies to employees dismissed without good cause.

In light of the set of rules established by the Workers' Statute and Legislative Decree 23/2015, we are faced with a case of retaliatory and discriminatory dismissal, which gives rise to the obligation to reinstate the employee (subject to the possibility of compensation in lieu) and to compensate for damages equal to the wages lost from the dismissal until reinstatement, not less than five months' salary.

Furthermore, the worker must be entitled to social security and welfare contributions relating to the period of unjust dismissal.

What changes

As we've seen recently, unlawful strikes are a recurring theme. The Court of Cassation, with ruling 11347/2025 , ruled that dismissal for participation in a spontaneous strike , not called by a union, is void, where the protest was conducted in the interests of workers. This ruling helps strengthen worker protection, especially in those sectors lacking widespread union representation, where protests can arise spontaneously.

By law, no specific forms of abstention are required if the strike is exercised collectively in the private sector. Indeed, the right to strike cannot be undermined by company clauses or practices that make its exercise difficult or risky.

The Supreme Court, in justifying its decision, recalled that the only limit on strikes is the protection of other constitutional rights of equal rank. Specifically, a strike can be considered unlawful—and therefore potentially punishable—only if:

• irreparably compromises the company's productivity. Consider, for example, a sudden and prolonged production stoppage in a food processing plant that causes the irreversible deterioration of raw materials;
• causes the destruction or permanent unusability of company facilities and structures. This is the case, for example, of a work stoppage that interrupts the operation of machinery, causing permanent damage to the department;
• puts essential assets such as life or safety at risk. Consider, for example, a sudden absence of healthcare workers;
• causes serious and permanent damage to economic activity and employment. This is the case, for example, of the consequences of a strike in the transport sector.

In the absence of these harmful effects on constitutionally protected assets and rights , the strike – even without a union proclamation or prior notice – remains fully legal, because collective abstention from work is a legitimate exercise of trade union freedom and self-determination .

In conclusion, the Court of Cassation calls on businesses to greater respect for collective rights, avoiding confusing formality with unlawfulness. At the same time, in ruling 11347/2025, the Court clearly states that, in the private sector, trade union freedom is not a monopoly of traditional unions : the power to strike belongs to the workers themselves, whenever they act to protect common interests and in compliance with the general rules of civil and productive coexistence.