Italian Job on Result

The new type of work obligation that now we got in Italy (L. 92/2012, Artt. from 23 to 26 specially but also 32) called job on result (it is), more or less one year later (despite it stays between civil law and labor law and also being the first time in the world for a work obligation of result) is just beginning its rule of doctrinal discussion with some juridical surprise.

Somebody says the project contract always was a result obligation. Replying to this obvious provocation we have just to remember something.

1 – Says Giuseppe Ferraro (Il nuovo mercato del lavoro, Cinelli, Ferraro, Mazzotta – 2013, Giappichelli Editore), rising up from no more than three sentences of the first level of our Judgement, that the job on project was ever a result obligation. Marco Biagi said in his manual (2002) that obligation was so strange that it must stay to the half between result obligations and diligence obligations. For that the first formulation of the Dlgs 276/03 contained words impossible for a result obligation (“fasi di programma” for example) and also for a diligence obligation (“in funzione del risultato finale”). Marco Biagi wanted a mixed obligation and the judges, knowing that, and also reading the Dlgs 276/03, the only thing they could do was considering every obligation of these a mixed obligation.

Needing people for a call-center? Come on, job on result! This reconstruction is nothing else than a joke. When we read the words “fasi di programma” it don’t is other than the Gamt Method applied to a kind of first regulation. That Method plays in diligence with results, and the Italian job on result plays just the result. Then, if we search for a date of birth of that obligation, it will be at least after the L. 92/2012, and never before. Its opposite should be the juridical policy was more important than the law, but every man wants read a law understanding what he reads because what we can read in a law we have to be certain it will be what we can see in reality. And anyway juridical policy is too difficult for the same generation of Marco Biagi and Massimo D’Antona.

2 – If we had a so big work obligation in our system, how is it possible that we can’t read some sentences upon, for example, a result not fully accomplished? I really can’t understand that. Some judgment upon a result not perfect and about its benefits for the “employeur” (the part asking for the result that is the object of the contractual relationship)?

If Maria Strino said in 2007 in “Rivista delle Relazioni Industriali” ( N. III 2007) the project contract of the 2003 was an obligation mixed (between diligence and result), if we can watch on the magazines of one year ago again employment searches for barmen with project contract, is it possible Professor Ferraro says now the project contract was always an obligation of result?

3 – How is it possible we can’t remember in our country there’s also another debate upon the difference between result obligation and diligence obligation, and that somebody says there’s no difference between the two types of obligations?

4 – We escaped from a world where a labor lawyer, if too progressive, was murdered. Our labor law is growing up (or trying to) and it needs the faculty of truth. This swamp of inaccuracies must we think it’s a way to not remember? The principal problem of the first version of the project contract was the lathe operators too could get involved in the enterprise machine using the old project obligation, while our actual result obligation of work can play just for a result.

5 – Finally we can’t forget the discussion leaded us to the wages. If the wages are in the L. 92/2012, for the job on result, something depending on a gentlemen agreement (an industrial relation), can we trade a job on result for any result? With the presence of the industrial relations in the same norm of the job on result (Art. 23 L. 92/2012 and the new Dlgs 276/2003, art. 61) it’s normal to think to corporations. But if that new obligation is “for the final result” how can we taste the result before we got it? Then the industrial relationships aren’t the genuine ambient for this new obligation, at least as we know them now.

Understanding why there’s some lawyer in this State testing the community of labor lawyers, using a level of knowledge more little than the level he got, it’s the first question I wish to ask, and this is just it but who writes is very happy that now we italians can use the first obligation of Job on Result.