With the order no. 15094 of 11.6.2018, the Supreme Court states that the employer can make use of investigative agencies to oversee the behavior of their employees, provided, however, that such supervision does not profess a form of covert control on the execution of work real.
The company hires a person with the task of monitoring the progress of some sites. At one point, the company suspected that the worker does his job well and instructed a private investigator to control their behavior. The investigator relationships are heavy and the company fires him.
The employee decides to challenge the dismissal and sues the company. Vince at first instance, but lost on appeal, since the Court holds that the company had every right to use a detective agency to verify the “diligent execution of their work.” In third grade, however, the Supreme Court overturns the verdict.
The Supreme Court, in fact, states that the provisions contained in the Workers’ Statute does not preclude the entrepreneur’s right to call upon the services of subjects – also different from the particular security guards – to protect company assets.
What, however, can never be tested by these third parties is the fulfillment / non-fulfillment of the contractual obligation to pay the worker his work, whether it should be carried out within the factory or outside the premises business.
Therefore, according to the judges of legitimacy, through investigative agency supervision must necessarily be limited to unlawful acts of the employee, which is not due to the mere working breach of the obligation.