Dismissal for assaulting a colleague may be lawful even where the employee claims the act was committed in jest. In its judgement No. 178 of 6 July 2026, the Court of Asti clarified the relationship between the seriousness of the conduct, the proportionality of the sanction and the provisions of the National Collective Labour Agreement.
Two blows struck against a colleague in the workplace, preceded by an announcement of a taekwondo demonstration, may constitute just cause for dismissal even where the employee claims to have acted in jest and the conduct did not result in injuries serious enough to require time off work.
This conclusion provides an interesting opportunity to revisit the criteria for assessing the proportionality of disciplinary dismissal, particularly where collective bargaining agreements initially provide for a non-dismissal sanction for the alleged breach.
Facts
The case arose from an incident that took place a few minutes before the end of the shift. According to the disciplinary charge, the employee, whilst standing near the time clock with some colleagues, had said to one of them, ‘I’ll show you a Taekwondo move’, and then struck him twice.
Following the disciplinary proceedings, the company had deemed the conduct incompatible with the continuation of the employment relationship and had issued a notice of dismissal for just cause.
The employee challenged the dismissal, arguing, amongst other things, that the incident was essentially in jest and contesting the proportionality of the sanction. Furthermore, in his view, the employer’s reference to Article 69, points 9 and 13, of the National Collective Labour Agreement for the Food Industry would have classified the behaviour as falling within the scope of offences punishable by conservative sanctions. The Court dismissed the appeal.
Disciplinary dismissal and establishment of the facts
A key aspect of the decision concerns the factual reconstruction of the incident.
The witness evidence played a decisive role. Colleagues present described the blows as forceful, delivered with a clenched fist and in rapid succession. One of the witnesses had heard the sound of the blows despite the background noise in the department; the employee who was struck reported feeling pain and having stepped back. This reconstruction of the facts enabled the Court to rule out the significantly less serious version put forward by the employee, according to which the blows had been delivered with an open palm, without force, and in the context of a calm conversation about martial arts.
The issue has broader implications. When assessing whether there is just cause, it is not sufficient merely to describe conduct as a joke, a game or a light-hearted prank. It is necessary to establish what actually happened and, above all, the context in which the conduct took place.
In the case under consideration, several factors contradicted the ‘prank’ version of events:
- the blows were struck suddenly and without the colleague’s prior consent;
- according to witness statements, they were delivered with considerable force;
- those present were taken by surprise and felt embarrassed;
- there was no friendship or particular closeness between the two workers;
- the recipient of the conduct had expressed fear regarding the possibility of further contact with the colleague.
The disciplinary assessment therefore turns on the specific nature of the conduct, and not from the subjective account subsequently provided by the employee.
Irrelevance of the absence of physical injury
The colleague who was struck did not need to take time off work. This factor, however, was not deemed sufficient to mitigate the disciplinary seriousness of the behaviour.
The Court emphasised the fact that the blows were nevertheless sufficiently forceful to cause pain, which persisted at least until the following day.Above all, it shifted the focus of the assessment from the physical consequences of the action to its potential to undermine the bond of trust.
The disciplinary seriousness of an assault cannot be assessed solely on the basis of whether there is a medically certified injury, the expected recovery period or any absence from work; the nature of the behaviour and its impact on the organisation must also be taken into account. Employees are, in fact, required to share workplaces, activities and communal areas with their colleagues. Physically aggressive behaviour may undermine the employer’s confidence in the employee’s future ability to maintain working relationships that respect the physical and moral integrity of other employees, and may disrupt harmony in the workplace . It is in this context that the Court identifies a breach of trust.
National Collective Labour Agreement and dismissal: a suspension does not always bring the proceedings to a close
The judgement also addresses the relationship between the provisions of the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) and the judicial assessment of just cause.
The employee argued that, in the notice of disciplinary action, the employer had referred to Articles 69(9) and 69(13) of the National Collective Labour Agreement for the Food Industry, which provide for sanctions including suspension. The Court rejected this argument.
The decision is based on the principle that, in matters of dismissal for just cause or justified subjective grounds, the classification set out in the collective agreement constitutes a fundamental parameter, but does not necessarily exhaust the assessment required under Article 2119 of the Civil Code.
On this point, reference is made to Court of Cassation case 9081/2025, according to which the assessment of the seriousness and proportionality of the conduct must be carried out by considering the concrete, objective and subjective elements of the specific case. The scale of values established by the parties to the collective agreement is one of the parameters through which the general clause on just cause is given substance.
However, this principle is subject to a significant limitation: where the collective agreement provides for a ‘conservative’ sanction for a specific type of conduct, the social partners’ assessment normally becomes binding.
The Court of Cassation has clarified that the classification of conduct that has been specifically established under a collective provision setting out a ‘conservative’ sanction may also take place where the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) uses general or flexible clauses. This is the principle affirmed, amongst others, by Court of Cassation judgment No. 11665/2022.
The clause in the National Collective Labour Agreement for the Food Industry
Article 69(13) of the National Collective Labour Agreement referred to in the judgment provides for the application of a warning, a fine or suspension for acts that are detrimental, amongst other things, to discipline. However, the provision contains a further clause: disciplinary sanctions apply only where the acts do not warrant a more severe sanction because of their scale, seriousness or repeated nature.
According to the Court, the collective provision does not reflect an intention by the parties to the collective agreement to confine all conduct falling within its scope to non-dismissal disciplinary sanctions. . On the contrary, the National Collective Labour Agreement itself allows a more severe disciplinary response when the specific characteristics of the offence justify it.
It is one thing forthe National Collective Labour Agreement to classify a specific conduct and provides exclusively for a conservative sanction in respect of it. It is quite another when the same collective provision permits a more severe sanction in certain circumstances.
In the latter case, the assessment cannot be limited to a formal determination of whether the conduct falls within the scope of the collective agreement provision: the actual seriousness of the breach must be assessed.
Proportionality of dismissal for assault
In the Court’s view, the conduct was sufficiently serious to justify dismissal. The fact that this was the first disciplinary offence formally brought against the employee did not alter that conclusion.
The assessment takes into account, as a whole, the manner in which the action was carried out, the force of the blows, their suddenness, the absence of a genuinely playful context, and the degree of intent involved.
The judge’s reasoning thus avoids two opposing automatic conclusions:
- the first would be to hold that any aggressive physical contact between colleagues necessarily results in dismissal.
Just cause always requires a concrete assessment.
- The second, however, would be equally incorrect: assuming that the absence of injury, the lack of a disciplinary record, or the possibility of classifying the conduct under a collective-agreement provision prescribing non-dismissal sanctions necessarily precludes dismissal.
Proportionality, , must instead be determined through a combined assessment of the objective and subjective elements of the case.
The line between good-natured banter and conduct warranting disciplinary action
In the workplace, there may be informal relationships, jokes and forms of familiarity between colleagues. The playful nature of the behaviour, however, cannot simply be asserted by the person carrying it out. The assessment must take into account the relationship between the parties involved, any consent given by the recipient, the manner in which the act was carried out, its intensity and the reactions it provoked in the workplace.
In the case under consideration, it is precisely the absence of a pre-existing relationship of friendship or familiarity that undermines the credibility of the claim that the incident was merely a joke or playful act. This supports the principle that the classification of conduct as playful depends on the shared context, not solely on the intention declared by the person who carried it out.
When, however, the act infringes a colleague’s physical integrity, instils fear and disrupts the harmony of the workplace, the focus of the assessment inevitably shifts towards the obligations governing working relationships within the organisation.
The judgment of the Court of Asti thus confirms that, when assessing whether there are just cause for dismissal, there are no shortcuts in classification. Neither describing the conduct as a ‘joke’, nor the absence of significant physical consequences, nor a mere reference to a protective provision in the National Collective Labour Agreement can replace an examination of the actual seriousness of the facts.
In cases such as this, reconstructing the context marks the boundary between conduct that is inappropriate but still compatible with the continuation of the employment relationship, and behaviour capable of permanently undermining the trust required for that relationship to continue.
