" ... qualify as conventional necessarily find its foundation in the content of collective agreements or the autonomous determinazionedelle parts ... The characterization may be regarded as merely conventional, ie not corresponding to tasks assigned and carried out less effectively, when in their award as part of contractual status of such a conventional upper are expressly given tasks containing less actually allocated to the employee, in the absence of such specification, tasks that can not match the title, not being able to feel in any way the conventional nature thereof. Indeed, in the first case is when there is a manifestation of individual autonomy which manifests itself in the legitimate expectation of a higher salary to the tasks carried out efficiently and specifically mentioned in the second case, ie in the absence of a specific indication of such tasks in spite of a lower allocation of higher qualifications, it would, with the lower adibizione to those duties, in an unacceptable de-skilling of the worker "(Civil Cassation, section work, March 27, 2009 No 7523, source: Guide to Work, No 23/2009, with notes and transcription of the passage by Studio Toffoletto).
The Court has admitted peacefully that the recognition of a certain status to a worker, regardless of matching to the tasks actually performed the same can not be considered contrary to mandatory rules or public policy. The fundamental principle deduced art. 2103, according to which the qualification must correspond to the tasks for which the employee was engaged, in fact, being established to protect the rights of the worker, may be waived in his favor, as the exemption is legitimate expression of autonomy negotiations if it meets an appreciable interest of the parties and not elusive goals of mandatory rules (see Cass. Civ., sec. work, 12.9.2002 No. 13326).
spoken in this regard, more conventional qualifications. Nothing prohibits, in fact, that the employer recognizes the employee in the classification in a category or a higher qualification, but not conventional, or to recognize them - to stop the adibizione different tasks (and lower than the level of classification) - a more favorable regulatory treatment and cost.
The Court of legitimacy and of merit, in accordance with the doctrine unanimously held that what matters for the purpose of identifying the content of the job performance art. 2103 cc, are deduced or tasks agreed upon at time of appointment, or those subsequently assigned to the employee, being indifferent to the framework, for pay, at a higher level, such as more favorable economic treatment (see Papaleoni in note to Cass. No 1434/1998, entitled "The frontier of the mobile disciplinary dismissal of the manager, etc.." cit., 266. For the legitimacy of the conventional, such as preferential treatment, the status of a subject leader engaged in the tasks below, See Cass. 5.2.1997, n. 1068, in Mass. egal. lav. "Mass. Cass." 1997, no 70, p. 23. Conf Pera, Handbook of labor law, Padova 1996, 411, which states: "Nothing prevents effect that a higher classification is assigned, though not exactly corresponding to the task, only to subjective assessments, in view of the highly successful collaboration of employees, in particular condescension, etc.. . At the same please read: Turin Court, 03 February 2000; Civil Cassation, sez. lav., February 22, 2006, No 3859).
In particular, the legitimacy of the court held that " the classification of a worker or other profession, such as the award of either qualification depends on the explicit in concrete by the employee, while the so-called conventional qualification criterion prevails over the general aforesaid, provided that it is attributed to the worker with a qualification higher than that in practice he would be entitled "(Cass. 04/30/1985 No 2768, which, among many others: Civil Cassation, sez. lav., January 9, 1987, No. 76, Civil Cassation, sez. lav., February 5, 1997 , No. 1068, which, among others, Supreme Court No. 12085 August 18, 2003, 17 March 2001 No 3873, March 25, 2002 No 4218, July 16, 2002 No 10305, December 5, 2002 No 17298, May 15, 2003 No 7606, July 9, 2001 No 9307; Court of Milan, 20.12.2002 No 3633, ext. Mr. Ianniello, that " the possible award of a qualification higher than that from the beginning of tasks agreed between the parties, would result in a formal recognition of higher qualifications, and then into an advantage for the worker, however, not affecting the level of protection for the professional obligation in the contract ... the applicant (seen in the level V, ed) ... have been assigned since the assumption of certain tasks the night porter, which included some cleaning tasks ... ..., which the actress would be their defense of an employee of the inferior seventh level. But as assigned from the beginning, those are the tasks that together reveal the professionalism deducted for the contract work, which has been attributed to the same qualification with respect to the classification of the collective agreement ... ).
With the ruling commented, the Supreme Court, however, clear that one can speak of the conventional level only when the designation or degree awarded, when an individual or collective agreement, they differ (up) in relation to specific tasks assigned provided they are explicitly stated at the time of the stipulation. In case of no indication of the tasks, however, the employee will be entitled to carry out the tasks related to the qualification that has been assigned.
