The probationary period: a useful tool, but often underestimated

The probationary period is a tool that companies are generally familiar with, but in practice it is often taken for granted or used imprecisely. When properly structured, however, it represents a key step in assessing whether the employment relationship truly works—for both the company and the employee.

It is not a mere formality: the probationary period is a real agreement that allows both parties to evaluate, during an initial phase, their mutual suitability for the role and the organizational context.

Il patto di prova è uno strumento che le aziende conoscono bene, ma che nella pratica viene spesso dato per scontato o utilizzato in modo impreciso. Eppure, se impostato correttamente, è un passaggio chiave per verificare se il rapporto di lavoro funziona davvero, per entrambe le parti.

Non è una semplice formalità: il patto di prova è un vero e proprio accordo che consente sia all’azienda sia al lavoratore di valutare, in un periodo iniziale, l’adeguatezza reciproca rispetto al ruolo e al contesto organizzativo.

Ascolta il podcast a cura degli Avvocati Stefano Trifirò, Mariapaola Rovetta Arici e Jacopo Moretti – Trifirò & Partners Avvocati

In today’s episode, we address a topic that is both highly topical and particularly sensitive for professionals involved in HR management and employment law advisory work: the genuineness of outsourcing arrangements, the use of so-called “sham cooperatives,” secondments, and the related risk of insubordination.

The central question is deceptively simple: when does an outsourcing arrangement cease to be genuine?

The issue arises whenever the contractor lacks a truly autonomous structure—in terms of assets, resources and organisational capacity—or when the client company exercises, even de facto, managerial or supervisory powers over the contractor’s workforce. It is within this grey area that a presumption of hetero-direction emerges, with the consequent risk that the arrangement may be reclassified as unlawful labour supply.

Nell’episodio odierno affrontiamo un tema tanto attuale quanto delicato per chi opera nella gestione del personale e nella consulenza giuslavoristica: la genuinità degli appalti, il ricorso alle cosiddette finte cooperative, i distacchi e il connesso rischio di insubordinazione.

La domanda centrale è semplice solo in apparenza: quando un appalto cessa di essere genuino?

La criticità emerge ogni volta che l’appaltatore non dispone di una struttura realmente autonoma — in termini di mezzi, risorse e capacità organizzativa — oppure quando la committente esercita, anche solo in via di fatto, poteri direttivi nei confronti dei lavoratori dell’appaltatore.

È in questo spazio grigio che si insinua una presunzione di eterodirezione e, di conseguenza, il rischio di una qualificazione come somministrazione illecita.

The role of the corporate manager has long been at the center of a normative and jurisprudential evolution that redefines their function far beyond traditional executive duties. It is no longer sufficient merely to implement directives from above: today, the manager is called upon to be a driver of change, a guarantor of organizational legality, and an active participant in compliance and governance processes.

The manager of the future — and increasingly of the present — is not a mere executor, but a figure called to bring corporate legality to life, to actively participate in governance processes, and to prevent critical issues.
In a regulatory environment that rewards effectiveness and sanctions inertia, the managerial role transforms: from a function of command to a function of guarantee and innovation.

La figura del dirigente aziendale è da tempo al centro di un’evoluzione normativa e giurisprudenziale che ne ridefinisce il ruolo ben oltre la tradizionale funzione esecutiva.

Non è più sufficiente limitarsi ad applicare direttive provenienti dall’alto: il dirigente è oggi chiamato a essere motore del cambiamento, garante della legalità organizzativa e soggetto attivo nei processi di compliance e governance.

Il dirigente del futuro — e sempre più del presente — non è pertanto un semplice "esecutore", ma un soggetto chiamato a rendere viva la legalità d’impresa, a partecipare attivamente ai processi di governance e a prevenire le criticità. In un contesto normativo che premia l’effettività e sanziona l’inerzia, il suo ruolo si trasforma: da funzione di comando a funzione di garanzia e innovazione.

The podcast that explores the world of work through the lens of the law. Curated by Attorneys Stefano Trifirò, Mariapaola Rovetta Arici, and Jacopo Moretti – Trifirò & Partners Avvocati

Posts, Chats, and Dismissals: How Far Does the Right to Criticize Extend?

Can a sarcastic comment on Facebook or a WhatsApp chat really cost someone their job? The answer is less straightforward than it may seem. The Constitution protects freedom of expression and the right to criticize, but this right is not absolute: when words cross the line and become insults or defamation—especially in a public setting—the consequence may include dismissal.

The Court of Cassation has clarified that private chats remain inviolable correspondence, even if transmitted through the employer’s server or reviewed after the termination of the employment relationship. Nevertheless, tone, content, and context can make all the difference. A complaint voiced in a closed group is one thing; a public post capable of damaging the company’s image is quite another.

This is where the real issue arises: where does legitimate criticism end and insult begin? The distinction depends on factors such as the purpose of the message, the audience to which it is directed, the language used, and the impact on the employer.

On the other hand, employers do not have unlimited discretion: monitoring is permitted only when targeted, defensive, and proportionate, based on a well-founded suspicion of abuse, and always in compliance with the Workers’ Statute and privacy regulations. Generalized surveillance or “witch hunts” are not allowed; every intervention must remain within clearly defined limits.

In this episode of our podcast, we will explore this delicate balance between individual freedom and corporate protection. We will examine recent case law, assess which behaviors can genuinely expose employees to the risk of dismissal and which instead fall squarely within the right to criticize, and offer practical guidance for both employees and employers.

The podcast that explores the world of work through the lens of the law. Curated by Attorneys Stefano Trifirò, Mariapaola Rovetta Arici, and Jacopo Moretti – Trifirò & Partners Avvocati

Social Media at Work: How Far Can the Employer Go?

In today’s digital environment, private and public communications often take place on the same platforms: WhatsApp, Facebook, Telegram, Instagram, TikTok… It is crucial, however, to recognize that private chats and messages constitute confidential correspondence. In the absence of a valid legal basis, any monitoring or processing of such communications by an employer is unlawful. Privacy must prevail over corporate curiosity—this is not only a matter of good practice, but a principle enshrined in Article 15 of the Italian Constitution, which safeguards the freedom and secrecy of correspondence.

What, then, may an employer legitimately do when confronted with remarks, posts, or jokes that are potentially harmful or offensive? The boundaries are not always sharp, yet certain guidelines are well established:

• Private remains private: if a conversation takes place in a closed chat, it is protected. Conversely, public content is a different matter. An offensive or disparaging post on social media—particularly where it contravenes the company’s social media policy—may validly give rise to disciplinary action, including dismissal.

• Employers are entitled to monitor online activity only in a specific, proportionate, and defensive manner, always in compliance with the Workers’ Statute and the GDPR. Generalized or preventive surveillance is not permitted.

The demarcation between private life and professional responsibility is subtle but not imperceptible. Every word expressed online has the potential to generate legal and professional consequences. For this reason, clear internal policies, transparent procedures, and a heightened awareness on the part of employees, HR professionals, managers, and executives are indispensable.