MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL polyreactions, 8 March, 2011 CHALLENGES, N. 10
DIRECTORATE GENERAL Inspections
the National Board of Advisors Lavoro
Via Cristoforo Colombo 456
00145 Roma
Alla Confprofessioni - Confederazione Italiana Libere Professioni
V.le America 111
00144 Roma
Prot. 25/I/0003178
Oggetto: art. 9, D.Lgs. n. 124/2004 – mobilità studi professionali individuali.
Il Consiglio Nazionale dell’Ordine dei Consulenti del Lavoro e la Confprofessioni hanno avanzato richiesta di interpello per conoscere il parere di questa Direzione generale in merito alla possibilità di iscrivere nelle liste di mobilità i lavoratori subordinati licenziati da studi professionali individuali.
Al riguardo acquisito il parere della Direzione generale degli Ammortizzatori Sociali e I.O., si rappresenta quanto segue.
In via preliminare, occorre esaminare la disciplina concernente la procedura di mobilità di cui agli artt. 4 e ss. della L. n. 223/1991, al fine di evidenziare i presupposti necessari per l’iscrizione dei lavoratori sospesi o licenziati nella lista appositamente compilata, analizzare i requisiti idonei alla fruizione della relativa indennità, nonché delinearne i limiti di applicabilità in relazione al caso di specie.
Risulta, altresì, opportuno, ai fini della soluzione del quesito proposto, richiamare l’attenzione sulle disposizioni di cui all’art. 4 L. n. 236/1993. Tale norma stabilisce infatti che “(…) nella lista di cui all’art. 6 comma primo della legge 23 luglio 1991 n. 223, possono essere iscritti i lavoratori licenziati da imprese, anche artigiane o cooperative di produzione e lavoro, che occupano anche meno di quindici dipendenti per giustificato motivo oggettivo connesso a riduzione, trasformazione o cessazione di attività o di lavoro (…) possono essere altresì iscritti lavoratori licenziati per riduzione di personale che non fruiscano dell’indennità di cui all’art. 7 della legge 23 luglio 1991 n. 223. L’iscrizione che non da titolo al trattamento di cui all’art. 7 della legge 23 luglio 1991 n. 223 deve essere richiesta entro sessanta giorni dalla comunicazione del licenziamento ovvero dalla comunicazione dei motivi ove non contestuale”.
The above rules and regulations, in other words, concerns the procedure for mobility for businesses with employment base under fifteen employees for which the requirements did not have any strictly required by the Articles. 4 et seq. Law No 223/1991 above.
The Standard, however, that the first entry in the list mentioned is not entitled to compensation for the use of mobility.
This allowance, as a measure of income support granted to workers made redundant following a collective dismissal procedure are concerned, under the combined provisions of art. 7 et seq. L. No 223/1991, no construction companies and operators seasonal activities, with more than 15 employees, or commercial enterprises within the scope of the extraordinary intervention of wage discipline.
in light of that provision that should therefore be noted that employers do not appear to qualify as professional studies within the categories of addressees of the mobility procedure of Rules of Law No 223/1991, nor does it appear they can be included, under a strict interpretation iuris, under the provisions of art. 4, paragraph 1, L. No 236/1993.
It is believed, however, want to read the last-mentioned rule to the effect conferred following the interpretation by the Court of Justice of European Communities on 16 October 2003 (Case C/32/02) with reference to the EU Council Directive 98/59/EC concerning the difference between the concept of law than the concept of entrepreneur Community employer. The case law states that the focus should be on a definition in the broadest sense of the employer, thereby overcoming the narrow scope of the concept of entrepreneur and the latter meaning any entity engaged in economic activity and is active on a given market.
In line with this approach of interpretation, it is believed that employers can qualify as professional be subsumed under the provisions of art. 4, paragraph 1, first indicated, although the rule explicitly refers only to "Business" and, therefore, that workers from these employees, fired for reduction of staff, are entitled to register for the mobility-called uncompensated.
On the other hand, the further question on the possible use for workers above the financial resources for the provision of social safety nets cd notwithstanding, for the perception of the benefit of mobility allowance notwithstanding, we provide the following specifications. Given that the
L. No 191/2009 (Finanziaria 2010) lays down that, with effect from 1 January, on the one hand to enhance the facilities already existing income support and other promote the reintegration into the labor market of workers unemployed, the discipline of the social derogation is reflected in regulatory Art. 2, paragraph 36, of L. No 203/2008, art. 19 L. No 2 / 2009, Conversion of Decree 185/2008 and Art. 7 b of L. No 33/2009.
The Legislature has decided to extend these measures with measures of income support to certain categories of workers normally excluded from the scope because of the reference sector, the company size or type of employment contract, the case of employers, including non-entrepreneurs, not entitled to the CIGS, or to companies that even with CIGS right to mobility or have already received over and above the limit.
These treatments may be granted with respect to all types of employment, with seniority at the same employer for at least ninety days, including apprenticeships and administration. This is clear from the provisions of article. 19, paragraph 8, No DL 185/2008 by which "the financial resources allocated to social security benefits at variance with the current regulations, also incorporated under the procedure provided for in Article 18 can be used with reference to employees in permanent and temporary, apprentices and workers administered.
the same article, paragraph 10a, has since ruled that "recipients to self-treatment referred to in Article 7 of Law No 23 July 1991 223 in the event of dismissal may be paid an amount equivalent treatment to the mobility within the financial resources allocated for the year 2009 to social security benefits at variance with the current legislation (...) ".
In relation to this provision the Legislature, under paragraph 6 of art. 7 b, also stated that, ensure uniform criteria for access to all forms of income support, even the workers targeted for the CIGS and mobility notwithstanding the rules relating to personnel requirements established for access to the same benefits granted in the ordinary way.
Therefore, as pointed out by INPS Circular No 75/2009, to qualify for disbursement of compensation in derogation of mobility is required, pursuant to Art. 16, paragraph 1, L. No 223/1991, the recurrence of an old business at least six of which at least twelve months been employed, including periods of absence from work resulting from accidents and holiday festivities, in Reports not completed, identifying as a benchmark for the provision of compensation to the date of dismissal. For the use of that allowance is also recalled that, pursuant to art. 19, Section 10 of Decree 185, is required by the worker as a statement of immediate availability for work or a course of retraining. "
That said, noting the legislature's choice not to further restrict the granting of the shock in question, it would therefore apply the rules in derogation of mobility, for disbursement of its benefits, to workers persons laid off for reasons of reduction of personnel by professional individual, provided all the conditions of a general nature outlined above, noting nothing in the form of individual legal entity or associated employers.
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (f.to Paul Pennesi)
0 comments:
Post a Comment