A job title and classification level may not be enough to identify what the employee is actually being tested on.
STATUS | Milan Employment Tribunal – first-instance judgment no. 3772/2026
Probation is often treated as a straightforward part of an Italian offer letter. It is not. The clause must be agreed in writing before the employment begins and must identify the duties against which the employee’s suitability will be assessed. A sufficiently precise reference to a collective agreement may sometimes work, but a generic title or a promise to define the role later can leave the clause exposed.
In judgment no. 3772 of 14 July 2026, the Milan Employment Tribunal considered a contract that described the employee as a Waste Operations Manager but reserved the detailed allocation of assignments and duties for a later stage. The court held that the clause did not identify the subject of the probation with sufficient precision and was therefore void.
The most significant aspect was the remedy. Relying on the post-2015 dismissal regime as reshaped by Constitutional Court case law, the Tribunal treated the supposed failure of an invalid probation period as a non-existent factual basis for dismissal and ordered reinstatement. As a first-instance decision, it should not be presented as settled Supreme Court authority. It nevertheless shows how expensive a drafting shortcut can become.
Practical point. For an Italian hire, the offer letter should describe the core duties forming the subject of probation, or incorporate a genuinely specific and identifiable job description from the outset. A document issued after employment has started may be too late to cure the defect.