Resignation by Conclusive Conduct: Legislative Developments and Conflicting Case Law

The regulation of resignation by conclusive conduct has taken on particular relevance in light of the first judicial interpretations. In particular, the issue lies between employee protection, employer prerogatives and employment termination. As a result, it raises practical challenges for companies and professionals.

The Legal Framework: When Absence Equals Resignation

At legislative level, article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 151/2015, as amended in 2024, addresses unjustified absence. If it exceeds the limits set by the CBA—or 15 days if none apply—the employment relationship is deemed terminated at the employee’s initiative.

In essence, prolonged and unjustified absence is interpreted by the law as an implicit manifestation of the employee’s intention to resign.

Clarification from the Ministry of Labour on Resignation by Conclusive Conduct

In this regard, with Circular No. 6 of 27 March 2025, the Ministry of Labour clarified that CBAs:

• generally provide for disciplinary consequences in cases of unjustified absence, which may extend up to dismissal, without prejudice to the procedural safeguards set out in Article 7 of the Workers’ Statute;
• furthermore, may specifically regulate resignation by conclusive conduct, establishing a different and more employee-favourable time limit than that provided by law.

Consistently with this approach, the Ministry has drawn a clear conceptual distinction between the time limit relevant for assessing disciplinary dismissal and the time required to presume an intention to resign inferred from the employee’s conduct.

Diverging Interpretations in First-Instance Case Law on Resignation by Conclusive Conduct

From a case law perspective, first-instance courts have begun to adopt differing positions on resignation by conclusive conduct.

The Labour Courts of Trento and Milan: The CBA Time Limit as the Relevant Reference

The first significant ruling—in contrast with with the Ministry’s interpretation—was issued by the Labour Court of Trento with judgment No. 87 of 5 June 2025. According to the Court, the relevant time limit for implied resignation matches the period set by the applicable CBA for disciplinary action in cases of unjustified absence.

Likewise, the Labour Section of the Milan Labour Court confirmed this approach in its judgment of 10 November 2025. In this regard, the Court identified the CBA time limits as the “critical” threshold of tolerance. Beyond this point, the absence justifies termination.

On this basis, the rule does not alter the seriousness of the conduct, but rather its legal classification. Specifically, the employee’s conduct no longer constitutes grounds for dismissal, but instead represents conclusive conduct expressing the intention to relinquish the employment relationship.

The Alternative Position of the Bergamo Labour Court

By contrast, the Bergamo Labour Court adopted a different approach. Judgment No. 837 of 9 October 2025 concerns an employment relationship governed by the Rubber and Plastics Industry CBA which does not provide for specific rules on resignation linked to unjustified absence.

In this case, the Court held that the time limit set by the CBA to justify dismissal for unjustified absence was not applicable, clarifying that:

• the time limit established by the CBA serves to assess the disciplinary seriousness of the absence;
• the statutory threshold—or a different one set by collective bargaining—for presumed resignation serves to attribute the employee’s conduct to an intention to terminate the employment relationship.

A further relevant element emerging from the Bergamo Labour Court’s decision concerns the method of calculating the days of absence. In particular, the 15 days indicated by the law must be calculated not as calendar days, but as working days.

Conclusions

Overall, the diverging positions adopted by first-instance courts highlight the need for a consolidated and uniform interpretative approach. Ultimately, such clarification would reduce the current uncertainty surrounding the application of the rule.

Pending further guidance, employers and advisors should carefully consider the interpretative stance adopted by the territorially competent courts.