He discovers they pay him less and freaks out, no firing

No dismissal for the metalworker who discovers that the company pays him less than other employees of the same level and reacts, upon discovering the document that proves the 'crime', waving it under the hood of his colleagues and

.

To reject the appeal of the company that wanted to make the worker protagonist of this judicial story lose his job, it is the Cassation that confirmed the

.

Or, alternatively, to receive five months of the last salary in the event that the employer does not want to reinstate him, after the disciplinary dismissal inflicted on him in 2017 - "for having degenerated into screams and blame",

as contested by the employer - and ratified in June of the same year by

.

Without success, the company protested before the Supreme Court against the reinstatement verdict issued by the Court of Appeal of the Ligurian capital in July 2019. In the opinion of the second degree magistrates, 'validated' by the opinion of the Supreme Court,

resulting from the discovery of being treated in a worse way than the other employees" and that "did not cause any further consequence as it did not lead to facts, nor caused any damage to the society".

According to the employer's lawyer, however, the extent of what happened had been "mistakenly considered minimal" and then the worker had pronounced real "insults" with "exorbitant methods the obligation of formal correctness of the tones and contents ".

In this regard, the

agree with the conclusion of the Genoese Court that "taking into account the particular circumstances that determined the reaction of the worker, the degree of trust required by the tasks performed by him and, above all, the fact that the working relationship was carried out in a manner regular for about seven years without giving rise to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions "

which must therefore be considered" illegitimate as it lacks just cause ".

In conclusion, for the Supreme Court - sentence 19181 of the Labor Section, president Guido Raimondi, rapporteur Fabrizio Amendola - "the path followed by the appellate judges is methodologically correct" and the defense of the employer demands a substantive review of the judgment "which exceeded by the powers "of ermines.

Thus the complaint was rejected.