Recognition of the right to disconnect in agile work

1. The fact

   The matter, which reached its procedural resolution through a recent ruling on the merits, originates from a disciplinary notice issued by a company against an employee working under an agile regime. As reported by Il Manifesto and Avvenire, the employee was sanctioned for alleged insubordination after ignoring phone calls and WhatsApp messages sent by his supervisor outside contractual working hours. The company contended that the flexible nature of smart working required constant, result-oriented availability. The dispute was brought before the Labor Court, tasked with determining whether the flexibility inherent in agile work could lawfully translate into an implicit, unpaid duty of availability.

2. 

   Laws at play

   The regulatory cornerstone is Article 19 of Law No. 81/2017, which requires the parties to define, within the individual agreement, the technical and organizational measures necessary to ensure the worker's disconnection from work-related technological devices. Article 2106 of the Italian Civil Code restricts the exercise of disciplinary power, requiring that any sanction be proportionate to the severity of the infraction and, above all, be grounded on the breach of a specific contractual obligation. Finally, Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code obliges the employer to protect the physical integrity and moral personality of the employee, making disconnection an essential preventive tool against so-called technostress and psychosocial risks. Failing to specify rest periods in the individual agreement does not entitle the employer to demand perpetual connectivity, but rather exposes the company to the invalidity of any sanctions imposed.

3. Case law

   Courts of merit and initial Supreme Court guidance have clarified that the right to disconnect possesses a binding prescriptive value rather than a merely programmatic nature. Consequently, the agile worker's right to rest does not depend strictly on a specific clause within the individual agreement, but directly derives from the subordinate nature of employment and statutory maximum working hour limits. Judges have emphasized that non-working time must be regarded as absolute rest, precluding employers from demanding the transmission or acknowledgment of professional communications outside agreed time slots. The prevailing case law strictly rules out that an employee's silence outside working hours constitutes a contractual breach, reiterating that smart working flexibility concerns where and when performance occurs, without erasing the boundary between work and private life.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. Professional lessons

   1. Draft individual agile work agreements that precisely define inactivity periods and rest times to prevent litigation.
   2. Advise against using private instant messaging applications to convey management directives, favoring corporate platforms that allow scheduled sending or notification silencing.
   3. Update risk assessment documentation with a specific evaluation of digital wellbeing, preventing potential employer liability for work-related stress conditions.

References: Legge 81/2017Art. 2106 Codice CivileArt. 2087 Codice CivileArt. 36 Costituzione

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 5 August 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction