Overhead view of a stressed woman sitting at a desk with a laptop, phone, and notebooks, possibly symbolising a resignation through conclusive conduct
| |

Resignation through Conclusive Conduct: Ministry of Labor FAQ of June 24, 2025

ByStudio Associato Pagani

On its website, the Ministry of Labor and Social Policies has published an FAQ that confirms some information already provided with Circular No. 6 of March 27, 2025. In particular, it clarifies the minimum duration of the employee’s unjustified absence necessary for the situation to be classified as “resignation through conclusive conduct,” introduced by Law 203/2024 (so-called Collegato Lavoro).

Minimum Requirement of Unjustified Absence for De Facto Resignation

Article 19 of Law 203/2024, supplementing Article 26 of Legislative Decree 151/2015 regarding resignations submitted via telematic procedure, introduced paragraph 7–bis. This provision establishes that if a worker remains unjustifiably absent beyond the term provided by the collective agreement (or, in the absence thereof, beyond 15 days), the employer may notify the Labor Inspectorate. The employment relationship is then considered terminated due to the “will of the worker,” without the application of the telematic resignation procedure.

Differences between Disciplinary Dismissal and Resignation through Conclusive Conduct

It is worth noting that collective agreements provide that a prolonged unjustified absence may entail disciplinary consequences. In such cases, the employer may proceed with dismissal, either for just cause or for subjective justified reason. However, they must comply with the guarantee procedure set forth in Article 7 of Law 300/1970. In fact, the latter ensures the worker’s right to defend themselves (see: LINK).

Circular No. 6/2025: Clarifications on Disciplinary Dismissal

In this regard, Circular No. 6 of March 27, 2025 specified that, if the employer intends to terminate the relationship due to the employee’s unjustified absence (disciplinary dismissal with payment of the relevant NASpI contribution) in cases provided by the collective agreement, the employer must follow the procedure indicated in the CCNL and activate the one under Article 7 of Law 300/1970. The Ministry emphasized that this procedure is entirely alternative to the one governed by Article 19 of Law 203/2024.

More Favourable Terms under CCNLs

The Ministry also clarified that collective agreements (CCNLs) may explicitly regulate the case of resignation through conclusive conduct, establishing a different – and more favourable for the worker – time limit than the one provided by law, namely 15 calendar days, for considering unjustified absence as a cause of termination. It is clear that the Ministry of Labor’s position sharply distinguishes the unjustified absence period under CCNLs for disciplinary dismissal from the period eventually set by the same CCNLs for resignation through conclusive conduct, which must in any case be longer than 15 days.

Conflict with the Trento Court’s Ruling

Judgment No. 87 of June 5, 2025 of the Court of Trento provides a different interpretation of the new discipline on resignation through conclusive conduct. The court stated that the relevant timeframe for determining the unjustified absence is the one set by the applicable CCNL. Hence, in this specific case, it is the CCNL for the Tertiary sector, which sets the threshold at over 3 days. This decision is in open conflict with Ministerial Circular No. 6/2025.

The Ministry of Labour’s Response: FAQ on Resignation through Conclusive Conduct

Hence, here is the reason for the FAQ published by the Ministry. It specifies that the employer may apply a different timeframe of unjustified absence, after which termination for de facto resignation occurs. However, this cannot coincide with the term set by the CCNL for disciplinary dismissal. Instead, it must be an additional period, introduced by the CCNL itself to regulate the new legal framework of resignation through conclusive conduct. Also, it is required to be be longer than the one provided by Law 203/2024 (Collegato Lavoro). In fact, according to the Ministry:

It is a general principle of the system that in the absence of an explicit provision, rules should be interpreted in favour of the weaker party, which in the employment relationship is clearly the worker.

Future Prospects and Application Uncertainty

In our view, this is a matter of divergent interpretations, which could open up further scenarios of uncertainty in the application of a discipline that already presents many critical aspects. Unless the legislator intervenes to integrate the provision (also through an authentic interpretation rule), it will be necessary to await a hopefully consistent orientation of case law in the near future.