legittimazione ad agire nel procedimento di repressione di condotta antisindacale: una questione ancora aperta? - Legittimazione ad agire nel procedimento ex articolo 28 Stat. Lav.: una questione ancora aperta?
La Corte di Cassazione, con la recente sentenza del 04 marzo 2010 n. 5209 (in Guida al Lavoro n. 18-2010), ha affermato che: “In tema di rappresentatività sindacale il criterio legale dell’effettività dell’azione sindacale equivale al riconoscimento della capacità del sindacato di imporsi come controparte contrattuale nella regolamentazione dei rapporti lavorativi. Ne consegue that the granting of a national union-association required to legitimize the actions of anti-union repression art. 28 Stat. Lav .- is relevant, rather than the spread of geographical locations, the ability to contract with the employers' side agreements or collective agreements, including management, which are used all over the country and attest to a general and widespread connection with the context of the union socio-economic whole country .... "
The principle established by the Court's Legitimacy, in the above decision, it appears to this writer's opinion persuasive.
the light of that non-adherence, it is, then, should clarify the reasons for criticism.
* ° *
Judge Laws
[1] , long time ago, had to point out that "ensuring the free development of a normal dialectic union is guaranteed by the Charter, not only through the prohibition of trade unions of convenience ( art. 17), but also and especially through the fundamental instrument of repression of the anti-union conduct of the employer under Article 28, the use of which requires a national one-size-organization, in order not to be tied .... the conclusion of collective agreements, specific areas of operation also allows organizations who dissent from the majority trade union policies pursued a quel livello. …”.
La Corte Costituzionale, dunque, con la anzidetta pronuncia, ha avuto modo di chiarire che il filtro selettivo richiesto, ai fini dell’azionabilità della procedura di repressione, è ben meno gravoso di quello richiesto (ex art. 19 Stat. Lav.) per la costituzione delle rappresentanze sindacali aziendali e indi per l’accesso alla legislazione di sostegno.
Appare, allora, evidente che svincolare il requisito della nazionalità, richiesto dall’articolo 28 S.L., dalla stipulazione di contratti collettivi, non può che equivalere al riconoscimento che gli articoli 19 e 28 Stat. Lav. hanno distinti ambiti di operatività e che, indi, l’accesso alla speciale tutela, per la repressione della condotta antisindacale, è basato su un filtro selettivo diverso da quello richiesto dall’articolo 19 S.L..
L’anzidetto principio, oltre ad essere stato reiteratamente affermato in una alluvionale produzione giurisprudenziale, è stato recentemente ribadito anche dalla Corte di nomofilachia
[2] , la quale, sul punto, ha affermato che:
“su tale questione gli orientamenti espressi sono stati univoci nel senso di ritenere sussistente la legittimazione attiva di sindacati non maggiormente rappresentativi sul piano nazionale, … essendo determinante il requisito della diffusione del sindacato (anche monocategoriale) sul territorio nazionale, dovendosi però intendere tale diffusion in the sense that it is enough to carry out effective trade union action (not all but) over most of the country (Cass. October 17, 1990 No 10114, April 20, 2002 No 5765, August 7, 2002 No 11833, February 26, 2004 No. 3917, June 3, 2004 No 10616, January 10, 2005 No. 269). ... On the specific question of the legitimacy of organizations that have not only limited to a predetermined end of the profession of their business, and thus targeted to bind and protect workers in general, the solution, in principle, must be positive. In this direction lay the lack of textual elements of the legislation to the contrary, freedom of trade unions to choose the way they organize that work, and, finally, the fact that the lack of a single reference category does not exclude that in a presumptive and trend, the national dimension ensures the functioning of choices, trade-union action, more knowledgeable, rational and therefore, more likely, function to protect the interests of workers. ... The character interbranch trade union association, however, may have reflected some specific issue in the investigation of adequate dissemination of the same territory. On the basis of the principle, taken from the same constitutional case law cited above, that, as regards the right to appeal under article. 28 SL requires the presence of a union with a minimum of representativeness is not restricted to a local, but spread throughout the national territory, where it is found the target group of the union itself, in principle, the minimum presence in the area of interbranch a union must be regarded in absolute terms, higher than those required for a trade association. However, in its practical application, that claim must be correlated with the principle that the representation required by Article. 28 Stat. Lav. is, as mentioned above, a much less demanding requirement than the more representative. ... "In light
of that principle, the Court reaffirmed the United Sections, it seems that selective filter required by 28 Stat. Lav. found to be satisfied, when there, the trade union organization, spread throughout Italy, conducted an industrial action extended over most of the country and union activity, which is not identified and not being able to identify only the conclusion of a collective agreement, may well Therefore, develop, due to its versatility in a variety of forms, including the holding of general strikes or national category, the holding of meetings, the production of platform of demands, the organization of conferences, the presentation of notes and observations on the Commission to guarantee so.
these principles which are guidance rather than consolidated, and so that recently the Supreme Court
[3] had the opportunity to reiterate that the agendum legittimatio to compete with trade unions over the territory and carrying out trade union activities, not all but a large part of the national territory, "to promote the interests of workers, in favor of which is directed, locally, the action of individual local bodies."
These deep-rooted principles, which lends itself to full membership, it opposes a policy that considers
[4] that "national expression dell’attività sindacale è la stipula di contratti collettivi di quel livello”.
Si tratta di un orientamento che sembra in contrasto con i principi elaborati, dapprima, dalla Corte Costituzionale e, successivamente, ribaditi dalla Corte di Cassazione a Sezioni Unite
[5] .
Infatti, l’asserire che il requisito della nazionalità si identifica nella stipulazione con un contratto collettivo nazionale equivale a fornire un’interpretazione dei criteri selettivi di cui all’articolo 28 Stat. Lav. ben più rigorosi di quelli attualmente richiesti dall’articolo 19 della 300-1970, essendo sufficiente, ai fini della costituzione della r.s.a., la sottoscrizione di un contratto di secondo level.
Obviously, this is antithetical to that principle, enshrined in the Constitutional Court and the Court of nomofilachia, "that the representation required by Article. 28 Stat. Lav. is, as mentioned above, a much less demanding requirement than the more representative. "
So much so that two rulings of the Supreme Court
[6] , including the opening, while placing himself in the wake of the aforesaid decision, have tried to correct the above guidance, including the category of collective agreements relevant for the purposes of legitimacy, even those managerial (albeit a different direction received to exclude the collective nature of the source): "to the recognition of trade union national association is relevant, rather than the spread of the territorial structures of the association, the ability to contract with the employers' side agreements or collective agreements that apply throughout the national territory "or" management of a collective agreement ... because the force, or to help with negotiations to make his conduct applicable throughout the country, the rules dictated by this contract is a sign of a decisive and concrete effectiveness of its special bargaining power ... It 's been held by this Court of Cassation that the rules provided in the Management Agreements are intended to delimit the scope of power of employer contributing to regulate important aspects of the employment relationship ... These agreements also express ... the negotiating capacity of the signatory trade unions, which is a prerequisite for recognition of the right of the latter to form rsa (as Cass. September 24, 2004 No 19271).
However, it appears that this approach lends itself to the same objections of his previous one as it is contrary to the principle developed by the Constitutional Court and the Court of nomofilachia, the substance in making the requirement for access to the procedure, a former art. 28 Stat. Lav., ben più gravoso del filtro richiesto dall’articolo 19 Stat. Lav..
In conclusione, riepilogati i diversi orientamenti, si ritiene, per le ragioni esplicitate, che il principio elaborato dalla Corte di Cassazione a sezione unite appaia preferibile essendo ben aderente all’osservazioni avanzate dalla Corte Costituzionale e allo stesso testo normativo.
Retelegale Roma V. Caponera
[1] Corte Costituzionale 24 marzo 1988 n. 334
[2] Corte di Cassazione a sezione unite 21 dicembre 2005 n. 28269
[3] C. Cass. 06 giugno 2006 n. 13250; 14 marzo 2006 n. 5506
[4] C. Cass. 23 marzo 2006 n. 6429
[5] Constitutional Court March 24, 1988 No 334; Supreme Court on December 21, 2005 No section, together 28269
[6] C. Cass. January 11, 2008 No 520, No. 9 January 2008 212. Both drawn from the same extender.
