Our law firm has challenged before the Ordinary Court of Rome the INPS announcement for the "salary differential" regulated by Article 14 of the 2019-2021 National Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Central Functions Sector.
Numerous INPS employees with seniority prior to 2019 complained that their employment status had been affected by Article 7 of the notice, which established the criteria for the payment of the aforementioned differential; the notice, in violation of the provisions of the relevant National Collective Bargaining Agreement, favored employees with less seniority.
INPS published the notice despite the Prime Minister's Office having already highlighted the https://club.pycca.com/ unequal treatment of employees.
The appeal highlighted how the primary violation was the rationale and Article 14 of the National Collective https://lms.tatbigia.edu.sd/ Bargaining Agreement, which aims to award the so-called salary differential to all those who have acquired " the highest level of professional http://lambang.sscollegejehanabad.org/ competence progressively acquired in the performance of their duties" and thus to remunerate employees' professional abilities under equal conditions. Otherwise, the criteria established by the contested tender resulted in an unreasonable awarding of points, resulting in a clear disparity in treatment between employees, to the point of compromising the position of older employees in favor of new hires.
On July 21, 2025, the Rome Court published a ruling in favor of the appellants, inviting the Social Security Institute to reevaluate their position.
On August 21, 2025, the reasons for this decision were published, based on an authentic interpretation of the rules underlying the internal notice published by INPS, including, first and foremost, the aforementioned Article 14 of the National Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Central Functions Sector for the three-year period 2019–2022, which expressly states: “ 1. In order to remunerate the greater level of professional competence progressively acquired by employees in carrying out the functions specific to the area and professional family, they may be awarded, over the course of their working lives, one or more “salary differentials” of the same amount, to be understood as stable salary increases .”
2. The allocation of "salary differentials," which constitutes economic progression within the area pursuant to Article 52, paragraph 1-bis of Legislative Decree No. 165/2001 and does not result in the assignment of higher-level duties, occurs through an area-wide selection procedure—activated annually in relation to the resources of the Decentralized Resources Fund referred to in Article 49 (Decentralized Resources Fund: Establishment) allocated for this purpose—in compliance with the methods and criteria specified below:
a) Workers who have not benefited from any salary advancement in the last three years may participate in the selection process; for the purposes of verifying this requirement, the effective dates of the salary advancements achieved are taken into account; in the context of supplementary bargaining, this period may be reduced to two years or extended to four years. Furthermore, a prerequisite is the absence, in the last two years, of disciplinary measures exceeding a fine or, for the cases provided for in Article 43 (Disciplinary Code), paragraph 3, letter f), a written reprimand;
b) the number of "salary differentials" attributable in the year for each area is defined in the supplementary bargaining agreement referred to in Article 7 (Supplementary collective bargaining: subjects, levels and matters), paragraph 6, letter c), in accordance with the resources referred to in paragraph 3 provided for their financial coverage;
The same article of the CCNL defines the criteria to be used for the attribution of the so-called "salary differential":
“ d) the “salary differentials” are awarded, up to the number established for each area, following a ranking of the participants in the selection procedure, defined on the basis of the following criteria:
1) average of the last three individual annual assessments achieved;
2) professional experience gained;
3) additional criteria, defined in the context of the supplementary bargaining agreement referred to in Article 7 (Supplementary collective bargaining: subjects, levels, and subjects), paragraph 6, letter c1), related to the cultural and professional skills acquired, including through the training courses referred to in Article 31 (Training recipients and processes);
e) the weighting of the criteria referred to in letter d) is carried out during the supplementary bargaining process referred to in Article 7 (Supplementary Collective Bargaining: Persons, Levels, and Subject Matter), paragraph 6, letter c1); in any case, the criterion referred to in point 1 of letter d) cannot be assigned a weight lower than 40% of the total, and the criterion referred to in point 2 of letter d) cannot be assigned a weight higher than 40% of the total.
f) For personnel who have not achieved a salary advancement for more than 6 years, an additional score of no more than 3% of the sum of the scores obtained by applying the criteria set out in points 2 and 3 of letter d) may be awarded. This score, defined in the supplementary bargaining agreement referred to in Article 7 (Supplementary Collective Bargaining: Persons, Levels, and Subjects), paragraph 6, letter c1), may also be differentiated based on the number of years elapsed since the last salary advancement awarded to the employee;
g) in the context of the supplementary bargaining referred to in Article 7 (Supplementary collective bargaining: subjects, levels and matters), paragraph 6, letter c1), the priority criteria may also be defined in the event of equal scores determined pursuant to letters d), e) and f), in compliance with the principle of non-discrimination .
The first-instance judge agreed with the plaintiff's argument that the selection process announcement, by giving precedence to professional experience over any other criteria specified in the National Collective Bargaining Agreement, provided for an excessive and unreasonable disproportionate score for experience gained in the relevant professional family or in the profile area of the previous system (valued with 7 points) compared to previous professional experience (valued with only 0.1 points). This resulted in candidates with greater seniority of service to the institution being overlooked by colleagues with less seniority who, however, were directly hired in the same professional family as the one for which they were competing in the announcement.
The decision also underlines that, furthermore, the aforementioned Article 14 expressly provides that the aforementioned criterion could not be given a weight greater than 40% of the total score compared to the other criteria – “ in any case, the criterion referred to in point 1 of letter d) cannot be given a weight less than 40% of the total and the criterion referred to in point 2 of letter d) cannot be given a weight greater than 40% of the total ” – thus providing for a balance between the criteria themselves and not such a clear prevalence.
The anomaly of the contested provision had also been highlighted by the Department of Civil Service, which, in a note dated December 30, 2024, invited INPS to make changes, which were never implemented.
Based on these assumptions, the Judge concluded: " From what has been highlighted, it follows that the contractual provision in question conflicts with the principle of good performance and impartiality of the public administration pursuant to art. 97 of the Constitution, the direct applicability of which in this case implies a violation of the principle of good faith and contractual correctness.
Deve, quindi, ritenersi sussistere il diritto soggettivo delle ricorrenti all’espletamento della procedura di selezione ai fini della progressione meramente economica all’interno della medesima area di appartenenza secondo i princìpi di imparzialità e buon andamento della pubblica amministrazione che sono stati lesi dalle citate previsioni del bando emesso dall’INPS, costituente atto di gestione del rapporto di lavoro avente natura privatistica, laddove prevede la valutazione del criterio dell’esperienza professionale ed il punteggio conseguente.
Occorre, peraltro, considerare quanto affermato dalla giurisprudenza della Cassazione n.22029/22 secondo cui : “In tema di pubblico impiego contrattualizzato, il lavoratore, nell'ipotesi di illegittima esclusione da una procedura selettiva o di erronea valutazione del medesimo, è titolare di un diritto soggettivo all'effettivo e corretto svolgimento delle operazioni valutative e può esercitare l'azione di esatto adempimento, al fine di ottenere la ripetizione della valutazione, nonché agire per il risarcimento del danno anche da perdita di "chance", ma non può domandare al giudice di sostituirsi al datore di lavoro quanto alle valutazioni discrezionali, con la conseguenza che l'attribuzione del bene al quale il dipendente aspira sarà possibile solo qualora la graduatoria da formare all'esito della procedura selettiva sia la risultante di criteri fissi e predeterminati ai quali il datore di lavoro, pubblico e privato, per autonoma iniziativa o pattiziamente, abbia vincolato la propria discrezionalità, rapportando il punteggio in maniera fissa al ricorrere di un titolo o, più in generale, di un determinato presupposto fattuale”.
E traeva le seguenti conclusioni: “Nella specie le ricorrenti, che non sono risultate vincitrici nella procedura selettiva de qua, possono agire con l’azione di esatto adempimento nei confronti del datore di lavoro inadempiente al fine di ottenere la ripetizione della valutazione sulla scorta delle doglianze riportate, mentre non sarebbe ammissibile la domanda di accertamento del diritto ad essere inserite nella graduatoria finale come vincitrici, previa attribuzione del punteggio asseritamente dovuto in seguito al riesame dei titoli e dei punteggi contestati in quanto ciò implicherebbe una sostituzione del giudice nelle valutazioni discrezionali della pubblica amministrazione espresse con una votazione numerica, considerando che tale discrezionalità non risulta pattiziamente o unilateralmente vincolata mediante la previsione di punteggi “fissi” collegati alla valutazione dei titoli o di altri presupposti fattuali.
Ne discende la condanna dell’ente convenuto alla rinnovazione della valutazione dei titoli delle ricorrenti ai fini della graduatoria finale della procedura selettiva interna de qua indicata in ricorso”.
The Court of Rome, noting the illegitimacy of the clause in the Public Notice due to its violation of the relevant regulatory provisions as well as the principles set forth in Article 97 of the Constitution, upheld the appellants' requests and ordered a reassessment of their position.
