Inverter Schematic Watts

Clarifications on compensation of disease during periods of wage

National Institute of Social Security



Circular number 82 of 16/06/2009

Central Management Services in Support of Income

General Coordination legal



the central and peripheral
Executives


the directors of agencies


the general coordinator, and central
Rome, 16/06/2009

peripheral branches of the professional


Coordinator General Medical and Legal


Medical Director



Circular 82

and, for information,





At the Extraordinary


the President and Members of the Board of Trustees and Supervisory


the President and members of the Board of Mayors


the Judge of the Court Audit Officer to supervise the


Chairmen of Committees


administrators of funds, management and funds


the President of the Central Commission


for the assessment and collection of contributions


unified agricultural
For

Presidents of the Regional Committees


the Presidents of the Provincial Committees

SUBJECT: Clarification on compensation
disease during periods of wage


SUMMARY:
1. Extraordinary layoff and sickness

2. Ordinary layoff and sickness

With this circular is intended to provide a summary of the criteria arising from the law and the guidelines in the case law govern the competition between sickness and wage subsidies. The argument
the circulars issued by the Institute in the past - the No 50943 of 08.02.1973 (point C), No 134362 AUG-84, 22.4.1980, No 134368 AUG-14 01/28/1981 - seem outdated in some places has been consistently held.

1) layoff Extraordinary and sickness

Regarding wage extraordinary confirmed the already stated in paragraph C of the circ. 50943 of 8.2.1973, recently incorporated in the message No 28449, 23.12.2008.

Article. 3 of Act No. 464/1972 provides that the CIGS 'replace in case of sickness daily allowance paid by the management bodies of health insurance. " This provision applies to employees, workers or employees, suspended from work.

If during the suspension from work (layoffs at 0 hours) onset of disease status, the employee will continue to benefit from the extraordinary wage: the work is in fact totally suspended and there is no obligation to provide services by the employee who therefore should not even communicate the status of disease and continue to receive wage subsidies.

If the state of disease is before the beginning of the suspension of work for CIGS you will have two cases:
- if the entire staff of the office, department, team or similar which the worker belongs has suspended the 'activities, including the employee to enter into CIGS disease from the date of commencement thereof;
- if, however, is not suspended from work the entire staff of the office, department, team or similar which the worker belongs to the employee on sick leave will continue to be eligible for this disease, if required by applicable law.

Also remember that workplace accidents and occupational diseases to qualify for compensation from the relevant insurers and therefore falls outside the concept of disease in this discussion.

2) Ordinary layoff and sickness

As for the temporary layoffs, No circulars AUG-84, 134,362 22/04/1980 134,368 and AUG-14 of 28.1.1981, states that in case of illness coinciding with a period of regular unemployment benefits, both to employees that the suspended part-time workers it is only the sick pay . This criterion was based on. 3 of D.Lgs.Lgt. No 788/45 that "integration is not due to manual workers part-time for the holidays and unpaid absences that does not pay."

However, as clarified by the Court in several judgments and agreed (see Cass. Nn. 917/1984, 4937/1984, 91/1986, 5219/1987), "the indisputable differences between layoffs extraordinary and do not exclude ordinary fact, that when the production activity has already been totally suspended the action of the layoffs, both ordinary and extraordinary, and the employee benefits of its treatment, the disease can not determine that suspension of the relationship (art. 2110 cod. civ .) where the sickness is related, while in the opposite case, namely in that of illness at the time of intervention of the layoffs (of course if the request for the sick worker), the replacement of integration to the wage contractually integrated daily allowance is fully justified by the principle that under Article. 2110 cod. Civ. can not compete the sick worker more than is acknowledged to current employees' (see Sent. April 23, 1982, n. 2522).

Despite the art. 3 of Law August 8, 1972, No 464 (which, as mentioned above, provides for the treatment of wage replace the daily allowance of disease) refers explicitly only to the extraordinary layoff, the law of the Supreme Court noted that "when the ordinary operation of the case is on suspension of production activities (not to the mere contraction of the same activity), there is a full identity ratio, which allows you to extend this latter case, the rule established for the case integration and that is extraordinary that the treatment of wage replace the daily allowance of disease, and possible integration contractual provision "(Cass. civ. sect. lav. No 5219, 13.6.1987).

therefore is applicable even in case of sickness during a period of ordinary wage supplementation, the same criteria described in paragraph 1 of this circular, which are summarized below.

If during the suspension from work (layoffs at 0 hours) onset of disease status, the employee will continue to take advantage of the ordinary wage: the work is in fact totally suspended, no service obligation by the employee, then that should not even communicate the status of disease and continue to receive wage subsidies.

If the state of disease is before the start of the suspension of work for temporary layoffs there will be two cases:
- if the entire staff of the office, department, team or similar which the worker belongs has suspended the 'activities, including the ill workers in temporary layoffs will come from the same start date;
- if, however, is not suspended from work the entire staff of the office, department, team or similar which the worker belongs and worker in disease will continue to be eligible for this disease, if required by applicable law.



The Director General
Crecchio

Nepalisongslyrics With Chords

When there is no agreement on compensation with the unions

With No decision August 5, 2008 21138, the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of union agreement, can not be adopted only one selection criterion for the reduction of personale.Il case examined by the Supreme Court is that of a worker who challenged her dismissal as a result of intimatogli a collective procedure under Law No. 223 of 2001, which closed without agreement with workers' organizations and the adoption of only one element of the production requirements including those prescribed by law (retirement, family responsibilities, organizational and technical needs of production). According to the employee, the company would have to apply all the legal criteria of choice in competition with each other. Both the court that the Court of Appeal has, however, considered the correct choice for business use only one criterion. Called into question, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal brought by the employee, stating that in case of failure to reach an agreement with the union on the criteria of choice, the employer is obliged to apply these criteria of Article 5 of Law 223/91 in competition with each other. The Supreme Court, noting the existence of some previous deformed, said: "Article 4 of Law No 223/91 provides that the company can initiate the mobility, when you do not wish to re-employ all the workers suspended, giving prior notice in writing to the company union representatives or, failing that, the most representative trade union organizations. The declaration shall state, among other things, the reasons for the situation of excess and lack of reuse, the number, location and the company's professional staff surplus. The parties should undertake a joint review. Union reached the agreement, the company has the right to place workers on the move and shall specify the selection criteria. Article 5 of the Act provides that the selection of workers should be in relation to technical and production and organization of the business, according to the criteria laid down by collective agreements with unions or, failing that, according to the criteria , in competition with each other, of family responsibilities, seniority and technical production requirements. " The violation of the selection criteria, involves the annulment of the dismissal. "It is clear from a reading of the law - said the Supreme Court - such as the use of the single criterion of production requirements is possible only after agreement with the unions. Conversely, when there is no agreement, the standard is mandatory in the sense that the three criteria (seniority, family, production) must be used in competition with each other. " What in fact emerges from an examination of recent decisions in this area is the principle of "stiffness" in the sense that "up to the formulation of selection criteria, the employee must be in a position to know whether or not it will be retained in employment or will be placed on mobility, because the selection criteria should be identified as those positions will be eliminated. " The Court therefore affirmed the following principle of law: "In the absence of agreement with the unions, the selection criteria to be applied in competition with each other. Their statement must be made in a clear and transparent so as to allow the start of the procedure to identify who will be expelled and those who remain at work. "