10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376
This essay addresses the complex model of regulation of remote work existing in Italy, composed of three distinct schemes: telework, “ordinary” agile work and the special form of agile work temporarily established to tackle the pandemic emergency. It compares the structural and functional features of the three bodies of rules by the systematic analysis of the relevant sources of legal and contractual nature. The aim is to assess the different solutions they envisage for the current problems of remote work, with a view to exploring possible ways to prepare the transition of this form of flexibility in the post-pandemic world of work.
application/pdf
1561-8048
13376
1
en
Carla Spinelli
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Covid-19
(Re-)Regulating Remote Work in the Post-pandemic scenario: Lessons from the Italian experience 
Text.Serial.Journal
https://illej.unibo.it/
14
Miscellaneous
2021-07-29
2021-07-28
2021-07-29
2021-07-29
209-260
ILLeJ
Carla Spinelli
2021/07/29
10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376
209
University of Bari “Aldo Moro”
1561-8048
1
Covid-19
en
260
(Re-)Regulating Remote Work in the Post-pandemic scenario: Lessons from the Italian experience 
https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/13376/12959
14
(Re-)Regulating Remote Work in the post-pandemic scenario:                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
lessons from the Italian Experience                                                           Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
Iacopo Senatori                                                                                     ISSN 1561-8048
iacopo.senatori@unimore.it                                           https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376
Carla Spinelli
carla.spinelli@uniba.it




     (Re-)Regulating Remote Work in the Post-pandemic
                         scenario:
             Lessons from the Italian experience
                                              Iacopo Senatori
                                               Carla Spinelli 
 1. Introduction. Regulating remote work in a post-pandemic world. 2. The Italian case in a
 diachronic perspective. From remote work to smart work. 3. The legal qualifications of
 remote work in Italy: Telework. 3.1. In the public sector. 3.2. In the private sector. 4.
 Telework in collective bargaining. The implementation of the 2002 European Framework
 Agreement in the private sector. 4.1. Levels of collective bargaining. 4.2. Rationale: the social
 and economic functions of telework. 4.3. Definitions and structural elements of telework.
 4.4. Organization of the work performance. 4.5. Employment conditions, rights and
 obligations of teleworkers. 4.6. Collective Relations. 5. The Italian way to smart working
 between law and collective bargaining: regulatory purposes and techniques. 5.1. In the private
 sector. 5.2. In the public sector. 6. Law No. 81/2017 on agile work. 6.1. The legal definition
 of agile work, its juridical qualification and the principle of consensus. 6.2. Some critical
 issues about agile work. 7. Agile work during the Covid-19 pandemic. 7.1. In the private
 sector. 7.2. In the public sector. 8. Agile work in collective bargaining (private sector). 8.1.
 Levels of collective bargaining. 8.2. Rationale. The economic and social functions of agile
 work. The legacy of Covid-19. 8.3. Definitions and structural elements of agile work. 8.4.
 Organization of the work performance. 8.5. Employment conditions, rights and obligations
 of agile workers. 8.6. Collective relations. 9. Conclusions.


                                                      Abstract

     This essay addresses the complex model of regulation of remote work existing in Italy, composed
     of three distinct schemes: telework, “ordinary” agile work and the special form of agile work
     temporarily established to tackle the pandemic emergency. It compares the structural and
     functional features of the three bodies of rules by the systematic analysis of the relevant sources
     of legal and contractual nature. The aim is to assess the different solutions they envisage for the
     current problems of remote work, with a view to exploring possible ways to prepare the transition
     of this form of flexibility in the post-pandemic world of work.

     Keywords: Remote Work; Telework; Smart Work; Agile Work; Italy; Covid-19.



 
   Iacopo Senatori is Assistant Professor of Labour Law at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy).
 Carla Spinelli is Associate Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bari “Aldo Moro” (Italy). This essay is
 the outcome of a joint reflection between the authors. However, sections 1, 4, 7.1 and 8 have been written by
 Iacopo Senatori; sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 7.2 have been written by Carla Spinelli. Section 9 can be attributed to
 both the authors. This work has been elaborated in the context of the research project iRel. Smarter industrial
 relations to address new technological challenges in the world of work, co-funded by the European Commission,
 Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (VS/2019/0081). The article has been submitted
 to a double-blind peer review process. Usual disclaimers apply.
    Iacopo Senatori                                                                        Italian Labour Law e-Journal
    Carla Spinelli                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                  Section: Miscellaneous




1. Introduction. Regulating remote work in a post-pandemic world.

    At a time when Europe and a large part of the world (or at least of its wealthiest countries)
start looking to a possible post-pandemic recovery, it is a widespread opinion among scholars
and policy makers that the legacy of Covid-19 will (or should) prompt a change of paradigm
in employment relations. While many options have been brought to the table in this respect,
there is little doubt that remote work will be part of the future landscape.1
    Arrangements to permit (or mandatorily instruct) employees to work from home have
been a widespread emergency measure during the outbreak of the pandemic. 2 Facilitated by
digital technologies and accessible high-speed connectivity, they supported public health
strategies by ensuring social distancing, at the same time operating as an alternative to
business closures. Specific regulations have been introduced to this end in several countries,
either by statute or by collective agreements,3 and it is easy to predict that in many cases those
regulations will not disappear in the post-Covid era.
    It is commonly acknowledged that the remote work arrangements extensively
implemented in the pandemic period, especially in the framework of lockdown orders issued
by the public authorities, exhibit only a distorted perspective of the real functioning of this
peculiar form of work, in terms of both the potentials and the problems it entails.
Permanently performed at home, in a state of captivity, often in overcrowded households
and while juggling continuously between work and care duties, the pandemic version of
remote work is far from the idea of a flexible form of execution of the work obligation that
is embodied in the “original” model.4 Nevertheless, the pandemic experience can be seen as
a stress-test which has shed light on what can be preserved and what needs to be reformed
in the current regulation of this topic.
    Recent field studies have shown that the adoption of remote work can have uneven
effects on the quality of employment conditions, depending on the personal and professional
characteristics of the workers, like for example occupational position, job contents, digital
literacy, availability of suitable dedicated workspaces, access to connectivity infrastructures
and family duties.5 Since these effects mostly tend to benefit skilled and economically affluent
workers that enjoy high degrees of operational autonomy, and penalize low-skilled and
disadvantaged groups (including women with caring responsibilities), remote work could, in
the worst scenario, sharpen the polarization of the workforce. Besides, other findings point
to a “horizontal” deterioration of certain employment features as a consequence of the

1 Mangan D., Gramano E., Kullmann M., An unprecedented social solidarity stress, in European Labour Law Journal,
2020, 11(3), 247 – 275.
2 ter Haar B., Menegatti E., Senatori I., Sychenko E. (eds.), Covid-19 and labour law. A global review, in Italian Labour

Law e-Journal, special issue, 2020 Special Issue, 13(1S); Eurofound, Living, Working and COVID-19, COVID-19
Series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020.
3 Besides the data provided by the contributions cited in footnote 2 above, other examples can be drawn from

the national reports of the iRel project at: https://irel.fmb.unimore.it/archive/research-output/national-
reports/.
4 Eurofound and the International Labour Office, Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the world of work,

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and the International Labour Office, Geneva, 2017.
5 Fana M., Milasi S., Napierala J., Fernandez Macias E., Gonzalez Vasquez I., Telework, work organization and job

quality during the COVID-19 crisis: a qualitative study, European Commission, 2020, JRC122591.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                          210
    Iacopo Senatori                                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
    Carla Spinelli                                                                                  Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous




adaptation of managerial practices to the dislocation of the work performance outside the
premises of the company. The symptoms include increased standardization of work
processes, pervasive surveillance enhanced by digital devices and dedicated software, higher
work intensity, difficulties in reconciling work and private life and the shifting on the worker
of the financial costs related to the work equipment, like internet connection and utilities.
   On the other hand, the studies indicate that, in spite of these drawbacks, workers generally
give a positive assessment of their remote working experience, and would be prepared to
continue, prior a renegotiation and a better clarification of terms and conditions of the
employment relationship.6 Furthermore, the pandemic has demonstrated that a higher
number of “teleworkable” jobs exist than it was previously assumed, although in many
circumstances translating such “teleworkability” into practice may require a redefinition of
the organizational design of the companies.7
   On these grounds, analysts predict that remote work will become a permanent feature of
the post-Covid employment relations, although in most cases it will return to a hybrid form
characterized by the alternation between remote and on-site work activities.8
   Against such background, the question arises of which regulatory strategy is most fit to
accompany this process, addressing the most pressing issues that the pandemic has exposed.
They include, as pointed out by a recent survey conducted on stakeholders from different
European countries: the right to request remote work, disconnection from work devices, the
exercise of managerial powers like monitoring and surveillance, data protection, the
safeguard of workers’ physical and mental health.9
   With a specific regard to the European context, the above question raises the problem of
the role of EU law vis-à-vis the local and largely uncoordinated initiatives launched by several
Member states under the pressure of the pandemic emergency. In fact, as it is well known,
the EU level has developed through the years a significant body of rules that are relevant in
this field: on the social dialogue side the reference is to the European Framework Agreement
on Telework signed in 2002 and the Social Partners’ Framework Agreement on Digitalisation
of 2020,10 while on the legislative side one can mention at least the working time and health
and safety directives and the GDPR. Moreover, the matter is closely linked to the initiatives
that EU policymakers are currently elaborating under the framework of the “digital
transition”.11 Hence, one may legitimately ask whether a realignment of a basic set of rights
and obligations on remote work under the EU umbrella represents a feasible and appropriate
strategy to countervail the risk of a fragmentation entailed in the proliferation of state-centred

6 Ibid.
7 Eurofound, Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital divide?, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg, 2020.
8 Samek Lodovici M. et al., The impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society. Special focus on surveillance

and monitoring, as well as on mental health of workers, Study requested by the European Parliament’s committee on
Employment and Social Affairs, European Parliament, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality
of Life Policies, Luxembourg, April 2021.
9 Ibid.
10 Senatori I., The European Framework Agreement on Digitalisation: a Whiter Shade of Pale?, in Italian Labour Law E-

Journal, 13(2), 2020, 159–175.
11 In general terms presented and summarized in European Commission, A Strong Social Europe for Just

Transitions, COM(2020) 14 final, Brussles, 14.1.2020.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                            211
 Iacopo Senatori                                                       Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                              Section: Miscellaneous




regulatory initiatives. The subsequent question is whether the existing EU-level regulatory
framework, composed of a mix of recent and less recent sources, can still represent an
adequate basis to address the problematic features of remote work that have emerged lately,
boosted by the fast changes in the social, economic and technological environment.
    The Italian experience may represent a useful case study to address the above issues. Italy
introduced a dedicated legislation on remote work in 2017, long before the outbreak of
Covid-19: Law no. 81/17 on “agile” or “smart” work. This legislation was in turn anticipated
by a series of autonomous collective bargaining initiatives at the company level (see sections
5.1 and 8), on which the law has then built on. Interestingly, many of such pioneering
agreements, mainly concentrated in medium and large undertakings of the finance and ICT
sectors, expressly declared the intention to deviate from the purportedly outdated framework
of telework rules, based on the 2002 European Framework Agreement as implemented in
Italy by an intersectoral agreement signed on 9 June 2004.
    Hence, Italy features two different and apparently alternative models of remote work: the
“old-fashioned” telework and the “modern” agile/smart work. However, whether and to
what extent the two models actually differ from each other in legal and operational terms,
whatever the opinion of lawmakers and social partners, remains open to debate. The idea
behind this essay is that a comparative analysis of the contents and functioning of the two
models may clarify this point and contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon of
“remotization” of work in two main directions.
    First, it will showcase a pioneering example of regulation of remote work on which other
systems, either national or supranational, may draw upon (taking into account its potential if
not its effective implementation), now that the adoption of this form of work is accelerating
on a global scale.
    Second, measuring the real distance between the two models may help understand
whether the established European framework, which inspired the former and was rejected
by the latter, may still represent a viable regulatory instrument, or should instead be subject
to a deep revision. The assumption behind this second research goal is that the shorter the
distance between agile/smart work and telework should result in practice, the stronger would
be the case against the alleged obsolescence of the EU rules.
    The essay will proceed as follows. The next sections, from 2 to 8, will explore in parallel
the regulations on telework and agile/smart work, taking into account the framework sources
of statutory and contractual nature as well as their implementation by collective agreements.
The deviations introduced by the exceptional and temporary rules enacted in response to the
pandemic emergency will be addressed, not only for the sake of completeness but also
because the possibility that some of the solutions adopted in the special legislation will be
confirmed in the recovery stage is still on the table. The conclusive section will assess the
results of the comparison between the two models, with a view to answer the research
questions outlined above and indicate directions for further reflection.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                      212
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




2. The Italian case in a diachronic perspective. From remote work to smart work.

   Talking about remote work, first of all it is necessary to understand the meaning of this
term12, being aware of the purely conventional value that every definition of a phenomenon
assumes.13
   The most recent regulation on remote work in Italy is focused on “smart working”,
looking at both the legal framework (Articles 18-23 of Law No. 81/2017) and the collective
agreements, mainly signed at company level.
   Smart working can be defined as an innovative approach to work organization
characterized by an increased responsibility of workers towards the work performance
objectives, associated to a greater flexibility in working conditions, with reference to the place
and time, but also to the work tools, which the workers can self-determine with (more or
less) wide autonomy14. The use of technology does not matter so much as a qualifying
element of this organizational pattern, but rather as an enabling and supporting tool for its
implementation.15
   This experience is grafted, however, into a historical path characterized by a mix of
continuity and discontinuity.
   Since the dawn of the first industrial revolution, the work performed outside the factory
was anything but residual. Resorting to home-work, in fact, some phases of the production
process were carried out at the home of the employee, because this guaranteed lower costs
to the company and, at the same time, responded to the reluctance of workers to enter the
factory or move to town.
   Since the end of the seventies of the last century, thanks to the development and spread
of information and communication technologies, a significant transformation has affected
the organisation of production systems and employment relationships.16 Therefore, telework
established itself as a way of performing work outside the company premises and often from
home, through an ICT connection with the company.17
   The benefits of teleworking were identified since the beginning, on the one hand, in the
achievement of greater flexibility and efficiency by the company and, on the other hand, in
meeting the needs of reconciliation between working hours and private life time for workers.
However, telework has had a limited application - in Italy more than elsewhere18 - and has
been marginally integrated in the labour market.


12 Gaeta L., Lavoro a distanza e subordinazione, ESI, Napoli, 1993, 1-2.
13  Nogler L., Qualificazione e disciplina del rapporto di telelavoro, in Quaderni di Diritto del Lavoro e delle Relazioni
Industriali, 1998, vol. 21, 5.
14 Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD), Smart Working. The Impact of Work Organisation

and Job Design, Research Insight, London, 2008.
15 Sarti D., Torre T., Is Smart Working a Win-Win solution? First Evidence from the Field, in Addabbo T., Ales E.,

Curzi Y., Senatori I. (eds.), Well-being at and through Work, Giappichelli, Torino, 2016, 237-40.
16 Aidlass., Rivoluzione tecnologica e diritto del lavoro, Proceedings of the VIII National Congress., Milano, Giuffrè,

1986; Veneziani B., Nuove tecnologie e contratto di lavoro: profili di diritto comparato, in Giornale di Diritto del Lavoro e delle
Relazioni Industriali, 1987, 1.
17 IT connection is a qualifying element for telework according to the EU Framework Agreement of 2002 (infra,

par. 4.2.).
18 Eurofound, Telework in the European Union, Luxembourg, 2010,



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                   213
  Iacopo Senatori                                                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




   With the recent emergence of digital technologies and the high levels of automation of
production processes, for many occupations the need to be present at the workplace has
been further reduced and limited to some phases of those processes.19 The work of digital
manufacturing, in fact, is designed to be performed both inside and outside the company
premises.20
   In this new scenario, remote work is carried out through ICT and digital media, out of a
predefined place for the execution of the service. It is the so-called ICT-based Mobile Work,
a form of remote work with a high rate of mobility.21
   Companies are often motivated to make use of it for reasons related to the strengthening
of the company appeal, since this form of remote work is considered consistent with the goal
of finding more flexible and innovative ways of organising work and attracting highly
qualified personnel, while reducing costs and improving productivity.22
   ICT- mobile work is considered as third-generation telework,23 enabled by wireless
technologies and mobile devices. ICT mobile work differs from the more traditional form
of teleworking as it is not bound to a precise place to perform work; the work activity, in
fact, can be carried out without a fixed location, anywhere and at any time, given that the
intensive use of digital technology and on-line data is perfectly combined with the high
mobility of workers, which takes place between real and virtual environments24.
   Working anywhere and at any time and the use of digital devices are the main features of
advanced teleworking also shared by smart working, but they do not exhaust the peculiarities
of the latter. In particular, smart working is performed in a dynamic work environment, in

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/comparative-information/telework-in-the-
european-union.
19 Donini A., Nuova flessibilità spazio-temporale e tecnologie: l’idea del lavoro agile, in Tullini P. (ed.), Web e lavoro. Profili

evolutivi e di tutela, Giappichelli, Torino, 2017, 81; Tiraboschi M., Il lavoro agile tra legge e contrattazione collettiva: la
tortuosa via italiana verso la modernizzazione del diritto del lavoro, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2017, 38.
19 Salento A., Industria 4.0, imprese, lavoro. Problemi interpretativi e prospettive, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 2017, I,

183.
20 Ibid..
21 It is defined as a new form of employment “where workers do not use their employer’s premises (or their own premises if

they are self-employed) as their main place of work, and spend most of their time working with information and communication
technologies (computers, the Internet, e-mail and social networks). Their work differs from familiar forms of mobile work such as
visiting clients or patients, working on construction sites, making deliveries or driving vehicles, and can be characterised as remote
work without a fixed location”. See Eurofound, New Forms of Employment, Luxembourg, 2015, 72 ff.,
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2015/working-conditions-labour-market/new-
forms-of-employment.
22 Valenduc G., Vendramin P., Work in the digital economy: sorting the old from the new, Etui Working Paper 3, 2016,

31 ff.
23 According to Jon Messenger, Team Leader for the ILO Working Conditions Group, first generation telework was

home office, second generation telework was mobile-office, third generation telework is virtual office. See Dagnino E.,
What does telework mean in the 21st century? Face to face with Jon Messenger, in Bollettino Adapt 27 July 2016,
http://englishbulletin.adapt.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Messenger_Bulletin_Final.pdf..
According to Valenduc G., Vendramin P., Work in the digital economy…, “The virtual work carried out by ICT-based
mobile workers is undoubtedly an offshoot of remote work, but it is now a feature of increasingly intangible and globalized
environments which are not rooted in time or space and where the boundaries between work and home, between employment and
self-employment and between producers and consumers of digitised information are blurred” (p. 46)..
24 The e-workers o e-nomads, according to. European Commission, The Increasing Use of Portable Computing and

Communication Devices and its Impact on the Health of EU Workers, Luxembourg, 2010,
https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/guidelines/the-increasing-use-of-portable-computing-and-
communication-devices-and-its-impact-on-the-health-of-eu-workers.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                      214
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                   Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                      Section: Miscellaneous




which “spaces, hours and work tools are reshaped in front of greater freedom and
empowerment granted to workers”25. Smart work is, namely, a system of organizational
flexibility that combines work remotely and results orientation,26 so as to operate a balance
between business goals and individual needs.
    As a new frontier of organising work, smart working is experienced with favour by those
who value its potential and push for change and with suspicion by those who highlight the
risks and resist it.
    Many empirical studies have highlighted that the benefit of organizational flexibility in the
interest of the worker is fully realized only if he/she decides with real autonomy where, when
and how to perform work. On the contrary, very often the discretionary choices of the
worker on the place, time and methods of work can only be made within the constraints
imposed by the management.27 Furthermore, the use of technologies can amplify the
exposure of the smart worker to pervasive forms of control by the employer.
    In this context of fluid and evolving digital revolution, in which diversified, but in some
ways overlapping, organizational solutions are affirming themselves, it is inevitable, then, to
ask what organizational phenomenon the Italian legislator intended to regulate with the
approval of law no. 81/2017 on agile work and with what results. In other words, it is worth
to investigate whether a suitable regulatory framework has actually been prepared for the
regulation of smart working28 and whether the new discipline is able, given its breadth, to
include all the currently widespread forms of remote work.
    In this regard, we cannot ignore the impact produced by the Covid-19 pandemic on
remote work, not only through emergency legislation, but also on the prospects for future
development and possible new regulation of this way of performing work.


3. The legal qualifications of remote work in Italy: Telework.

    Moving from the description of the phenomenon to its legal qualification, before
indulging into the examination of the provisions on agile work relevant for this purpose, it
is necessary to dwell on the definition and legal qualification of teleworking in our legal
system, also mentioning its legal and contractual regulation. It is necessary to do so, not so
much because agile work could turn out to be, in the end, simply an updated form of
teleworking, but above all because the choice made by the Italian legislator to adopt a specific

25 Chiaro G. Prati G., Zocca M., Smart Working: dal lavoro flessibile al lavoro agile, in Sociologia del lavoro, 2015, 72.
26 Casillo R., La subordinazione “agile”, in Diritti lavori mercati, 2017, 6-7.
27 Albano R., Bertolini S., Curzi Y., Fabbri T., Parisi T., DigitAgile: l’ufficio nel dispositivo mobile. Opportunità e rischi

per lavoratori e aziende, Osservatorio MU.S.I.C., Working Paper Series 3, 2017, 7 ff.
28 According to Manzella P., Nespoli F., Le parole del lavoro: un glossario internazionale/22 – agile o smart, in Bollettino

Adapt, 22 febbraio 2016, http://www.bollettinoadapt.it/le-parole-del-lavoro-ma-il-lavoro-e-agile-o-smart-2/,
agile work and smart work are not synonimous. More precisely, the term agile work mainly refers to autonomy
related to work-life balance, while “smart working” mainly refers to worker’s capability. According to Biasi M.,
Brevi spunti sul lavoro da remoto post-emergenziale, tra legge (lavoro agile) e contrattazione (smart working), in Lavoro e
Previdenza Oggi, 2021, 3-4, the difference between the two notions depends on the regulatory sources: “agile
work” refers to the statutory regulation whereas “smart work” points to the implementation by collective
agreements.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                              215
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




discipline on agile work was, prior to the advent of the pandemic emergency, unique among
EU Member States.
    The issue of the legal qualification has been deeply investigated with regard to
teleworking29. The prevailing literature has held that telework can take on any contractual
form, both subordinate and autonomous. However, both in the public and in the private
sector, telework has been taken into consideration by the regulatory sources as an alternative
way to perform work within an ongoing subordinate employment relationship.


3.1. In the public sector.

    The Law of 16 June 1998, n. 191 has regulated teleworking in the public sector with the
aim of modernising public administrations through the introduction of remote work. The
legislator has identified the essential characteristics of teleworking, while referring its
regulation to other sources of law (art. 4).
    The organizational measures for the implementation of telework in the public sector have
been defined through the Presidential Decree No. 70 of 8 March 1999, where the definition
of telework can be found.
    According to this definition (art. 2, c. 1, lett. b), teleworking is characterised by
“performing work in any place deemed suitable, placed outside the public administration’s
premises, where the work activity is technically possible, with the prevailing 30 support of
information and communication technologies, allowing connection with the public
administration where the work is expected”.
    The main features of telework can therefore be identified as such: working outside the
workplace in any suitable place; prevailing use of ICT for carrying out work; availability of
online connection with the public administration.
    Each public administration has to put in place a detailed project of teleworking in order
to identify, above all, the objectives to be reached, the activities concerned, the technologies
to be used, the number of employees involved, the times and methods of implementation,
the costs and benefits. (art. 3). The Presidential Decree No. 70/1999 provides also for

29  See, at least: Gaeta L., Prime osservazioni sulla qualificazione giuridica del «telelavoro», in Lavoro 80, 1986, 344 ff.;
Roma G., Il telelavoro: aspetti giuridici e sindacali, in Grasso B. (ed.), Il telelavoro: lavoreremo tutti a casa?, Edizioni dal
Sud, Bari, 1986, 269 ff.; Gaeta L., Lavoro a distanza…, (12); Flammia R., voce Telelavoro, in Enciclopedia Giuridica
Treccani, Roma, 1993, Vol. XXX; Gaeta L., Il telelavoro: legge e contrattazione, in Giornale di Diritto del Lavoro e delle
Relazioni Industriali, 1995, 547 ff.; Giugni G., È necessario subito un altro (tele)statuto, in Teléma, 2, 1995, 46 ff.; Ichino
P., I problemi giuridici del telelavoro, in Notiziario Giuridico del lavoro, 75, 1995, 17 ff.; Napoli M., Il telelavoro come lavoro
subordinato, in Id. (ed.), Questioni di diritto del lavoro, Giappichelli, Torino, 1996, 146 ff.; Gaeta L., Pascucci P. (eds.),
Telelavoro e diritto, Giappichelli, Torino, 1998; Nogler L., Qualificazione…, (13), 105 ff.; Gaeta L., Pascucci P., Una
riflessione critica sul telelavoro, in Il Diritto del Mercato del Lavoro., 2001, 11 ff.; Gottardi D., voce Telelavoro, in Digesto
(discipline privatistiche - sezione commerciale), Agg., Utet, 2003, 911 ff.; Toffoletto F., Nuove tecnologie informatiche e
tutela del lavoratore, Giuffrè, Milano, 2006; Maio V., Il telelavoro, in Persiani M. (ed.), I nuovi contratti di lavoro,
Giappichelli, Torino, 2010, Utet, 779 ff.; Gaeta L., voce Telelavoro, in Enciclopedia Giuridica Treccani – Diritto on
line, 2015.
30 “Prevailing” means significantly relevant in performing work, see Gaeta L., Il regolamento sul telelavoro nelle

pubbliche amministrazioni, in Lavoro nelle Pubbliche Amministrazioni, 1999, 315.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                   216
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




instructions on the characteristics and criteria to be respected when installing and using
teleworking stations (art. 5).
    On the other hand, it has been deferred to the Framework Agreement of 23 March 2000
to identify the criteria and methods for the assignment of public employees to teleworking
projects and define the economic and regulatory treatment to be applied to them, with
particular reference to health and safety protection measures, limits to public managers
power of control, wages and trade union rights31.
    As far as the modalities for performing telework are concerned, the Framework
Agreement provides for three different models to be selected within the specific project:
teleworking from home, mobile teleworking and work in telework centres. Therefore, the
possibility to choose any place other than the office to execute the work performance is
confirmed, providing that it is “suitable”, which means that there are no technological
obstacles to perform there the work activity. Alternating telework is also admitted by art. 5,
par. 1, i.e. arrangements whereby the worker spends part of his/her working time at the
employer's premises and the rest elsewhere. This leads to the question of the extent of the
difference between telework and agile work as long as the workplace settings are concerned,
that will be further addressed in section 5.
    Telework has also been regulated by collective agreements at sectoral level, defining,
among other issues, the procedures to implement the projects, the criteria to set working
time and availability slots, training initiatives, insurance coverage for damages deriving from
the use of the ICT equipment supplied to the teleworker, the duty of confidentiality.
    The second level collective bargaining concerned the adaptations of the employment
relationship regulations required by the particular characteristics of teleworking32, as well as
the regulation of specific training and performance-related bonus for teleworkers.
    Prompted by collective agreement regulations, especially in the sectors of non-economic
public bodies33 and local governments34, various teleworking projects have been
implemented. Nevertheless, the effective use of this flexible means of execution of the work
performance remained far below the expectations even in the public sector.35



31  Gaeta L., Pascucci P., Poti U., Il telelavoro nelle pubbliche amministrazioni, Il sole 24 ore, Milano, 1999; Poti U.,
Cordella C., Il telelavoro nella pubblica amministrazione: aspetti organizzativi e riflessi sull’occupazione, in Il Diritto del Mercato
del Lavoro, 1999, 318 ff.; Viscomi A., Telelavoro e pubbliche amministrazioni (d.p.r. 8 marzo 1999, n. 70), in Studium
iuris, 1999, 1065 ff.; Nogler L., Lavoro a domicilio, in Schlesinger P. (ed.), Commentario al Codice Civile, Giuffrè,
Milano, 2000, 581 ff.; Natullo G., Il telelavoro, in Carinci F., Zoppoli L. (eds.), Il lavoro nelle pubbliche amministrazioni,
Utet, Torino, 2004, 611 ff.; Battisti A. M., Commento all’ art. 36 – Parte prima. Le tipologie flessibili, in Amoroso G.,
Di Cerbo V., Fiorillo L., Maresca A., Diritto del lavoro – Il lavoro pubblico, Giuffrè, Milano, vol. III, 2011, 567-570.
32 Art. 3, c. 4, Framework Agreement on Telework 23.3.2000.
33 National Institute for Social Security (INPS) agreement of 15 October 2014; National Institute of Insurance

against Accidents at Work (INAIL) regulation of 21 January 2015 No. 12.
34 Spinelli C., La flessibilità degli orari per la conciliazione dei tempi di vita e lavoro: l’organizzazione municipale, in Bavaro

V., Carabelli U., Sforza G., Voza R. (eds.), Tempo Comune. Conciliazione di vita e lavoro e armonizzazione dei tempi della
città, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2009, 107.
35    Penna M., I numeri del telelavoro nel pubblico impiego, Rapporto Tecnico ENEA, 2016,
http://openarchive.enea.it/handle/10840/7614.2016.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                      217
     Iacopo Senatori                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                  Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous




   More recently, an attempt was made to promote a sort of telework by default in the public
administrations, according to Article 9, par. 7, Law Decree 18 October 2012, No. 179,
converted by Law n. 221 of 17 December 2012. The norm requires public administrations
to implement a Telework Plan in which they must specify “the methods of implementation
and any activities for which the use of telework is not possible”. The intention was to
undertake a real reversal of perspective, which would have seen teleworking switch from the
exception to the ordinary rule. By March 31 of each year, public administrations should have
published on their website the state of implementation of the Telework Plan, the non-
publication of which would have been considered relevant for the measurement and
assessment of the individual performance of the responsible public managers.
   But even this provision was largely disregarded and, therefore, a few years later the
legislator intervened again with article 14 of Law No. 124/2015, entitled “Promotion of
work-life balance in public administrations”. In this perspective, the norm provides for (once
again!) the adoption of organizational measures to implement teleworking and aims at testing,
also in order to support parental care, new space-time flexible ways of carrying out the work
performance, for at least 10% of the workers who so request.
   As will be seen (section 5.2), the adoption of agile work in public administrations relies
on this provision, while it is on the basis of its amendment that derogatory rules on agile
work have been introduced in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic (infra, par. 6.2).


3.2. In the private sector.

   Telework regulations for the private sector has been adopted through collective
bargaining and, therefore, thy are binding for the signatory parties only, since in Italy
collective agreements have no erga omnes effect.
   In this perspective, the main source of regulation is the Intersectoral Agreement of 9 June
2004,36 which fully implemented, with a few marginal adjustments, the EU social partners’
Framework Agreement on Telework of 16 July 2002.
   First of all, the contracting parties of the Intersectoral Agreement on teleworking share
the aims pursued by the EU social partners: modernising work organisation; promoting
work-life balance; giving greater autonomy to the workers in the accomplishment of their
tasks; making the most out of the information society; combining flexibility and security;
enhancing quality of jobs and increasing the chances of disabled people on the labour market.
   Telework is defined by art. 1 of 2004 Agreement, in line with the EU social partners
Framework Agreement, like “a form of organising and/or performing work, using
information technology, in the context of an employment contract/relationship, where work,
which could also be performed at the employer’s premises, is carried out away from those
premises on a regular basis”.

36The Intersectoral agreement was signed by Confindustria, Confartigianato, Confesercenti, CNA, Confapi,
Confservizi, ABI, AGCI, ANIA, APLA, Casartigiani, CIA, CLAAI, Coldiretti, Confagricoltura,
Confcooperative, Confcommercio, Confetra, Confinterim, Legacooperative, UNCI e CGIL, CISL, UIL. See
Faioli M., Telelavoro, in Enciclopedia Giuridica Treccani, Aggiornamento 2006.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                             218
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                   Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                      Section: Miscellaneous




    Even in the private sector, then, telework is not qualified as a new form of work, but as a
way to perform subordinate work outside the employer’s premises with the essential support
of ICT.
    However, there is a critical point in this definition that concerns the expression “on a
regular basis” referred to the work performance carried out outside the company premises.
It seems to leave out, beyond the intention of the social partners to adopt a broad notion of
telework,37 those type of telework in which this regularity could be lacking, as in the case of
occasional, mobile or alternating telework.38
    In the Report on the state of implementation of the EU social partners’ Framework
Agreement on telework,39 as a result of the analysis of the national regulations considered,
the European Commissions suggested a modification of the definition of telework adopted
by the social partners, consistent with what had been its original proposal at this regard, that
is, to provide for a quantitative threshold for qualifying remote work.40
    There is no doubt that the expression “on a regular basis” could have more than one
meaning. On the one hand, it can be considered as inherent to the temporal continuity of
telework, which cannot be occasionally performed to be qualified as such; on the other hand,
it could entail that the work activity shall be performed permanently outside the workplace.41
    The Intersectoral Agreement of 2004 confirms that telework is voluntary for both the
employer and the employee, which means that the latter has not a right to telework but, at
the same time, he/she cannot be dismissed because of his/her refusal to opt for telework
(art. 2)
    The decision to shift to telework shall be reversible by individual and/or collective
agreement (art. 2, c. 6), which shall provide for specific modalities in this respect (art. 11, c.
2). The reversibility could imply returning to work at the employer’s premises, at the worker’s
or at the employer’s request. The passage to telework as such does not affect the teleworker’s
employment status, because it only modifies the way in which work is performed (art. 2, c.
5). This provision confirms that the employment contract remains the background regulation

37 ETUC, Framework Agreement on Telework – Interpretation Guide,
https://resourcecentre.etuc.org/linked_files/documents/Telework%20-
20ETUC%20interpretation%20guide%20EN.pdf
38 See Gottardi D., Telelavoro (29), 909.
39 European Commission, Report on the implementation of the European social partners' Framework Agreement on Telework,

SEC(2008) 2178, Bruxelles, ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=463&langId=en. Berti V., Il telelavoro nel
contesto europeo tra nozione comunitaria e sistemi giuridici statali, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 2008, 1233-34.
40 The report reads: “The Commission therefore proposed the following definition of telework: «Telework is a

method of organising and/or performing work which accounts for at least a considerable proportion of working time and which is
done by a natural person in the framework of an employment relationship, in the following cumulative conditions:
- the work is done at a distance (away from the firm's premises or away from the place where the work is expected),
- the work is performed using information technology and technology for data transmission, in particular the internet».
Definitions based on these factors could cover the three types of telework identified: teleworking from home,
mobile teleworking (via portable communication systems) and work in telework centres (outstations,
neighbourhood offices, telecottages). They could also cover both permanent and alternating telework, i.e.
arrangements whereby the worker spends part of his/her working time at the employer's premises and the rest
elsewhere” (par. 3.1.).
41 This interpretative issue will be further analysed in section 6.1, comparing the definitions of telework and

agile work.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                              219
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                   Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                      Section: Miscellaneous




to look at for both the EU social partners’ Framework Agreement of 2002 and the Italian
Intersectoral Agreement of 2004.
    As far as working conditions are concerned, teleworkers shall benefit from the same
rights, guaranteed by applicable legislation and collective agreements, as comparable workers
at the employer’s premises (art. 3).
    Other provisions deal with the effects on the work performance deriving from the use of
ICT, mainly related to work equipment (art. 6), data protection (art. 4) and privacy of the
teleworker (art. 5).
    Finally, other relevant issues addressed by the social partners concern health and safety of
the teleworker (art. 7); work organisation aspects, such as working time, workload and
prevention from the risk of isolation of the teleworker (art. 8); access to same training
opportunities as comparable workers at the employer's premises and appropriate training
targeted at the technical equipment at their disposal (art. 9); collective rights and workers’
representation issues (art. 10).
    The most recent legislative interventions to promote teleworking in the private sector
have been conceived with the aim of facilitating work-life balance, as has already been
highlighted with regard to public administrations. The measures adopted to enhance telework
consist of normative and economic incentives, (e.g. performance-related bonus) foreseen by
Law No. 183/2001 (art. 22, c. 5) and Legislative Decree No. 80/2015 (articles 23 and 25).42
To be eligible for the incentives, the law requires that telework be activated by means of
collective agreements.


4. Telework in collective bargaining. The implementation of the 2002 European
Framework Agreement in the private sector.

4.1. Levels of collective bargaining.

   As it has been recalled above, the 2002 European Framework Agreement on Telework
(EFAT) was implemented in Italy by the National Intersectoral Agreement (Accordo
Interconfederale, AI) of 9 June 2004, signed by the leading trade unions and employers’
organizations of the private sector.
   The AI amounts to a large extent to a plain transposition of the EFAT provisions.
However, differently from the latter, it features a specific clause (article 11, entitled
“Collective Bargaining”/”Contrattazione collettiva”), addressing the regulatory competences


42 Calafà L., Le misure di conciliazione vita-lavoro: un quadro di sintesi, in Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.), Commentario
breve alla riforma “Jobs Act”, Kluwer-Cedam, 2016, 693 ff.; Tarantini E., La conciliazione tempi di vita – tempi di lavoro
nella legge di stabilità 2016, in Ghera E., Garofalo D. (eds.), Semplificazioni - sanzioni - ispezioni nel Jobs Act 2, Cacucci,
Bari, 2016, 189 ff.
L. Calafà, Le misure di conciliazione vita-lavoro: un quadro di sintesi, in G. Zilio Grandi, M. Biasi (a cura di), Commentario
breve alla riforma “Jobs Act”, Kluwer-Cedam, 2016, p. 693 ff.; E. Tarantini, La conciliazione tempi di vita – tempi di
lavoro nella legge di stabilità 2016, in E. Ghera, D. Garofalo (a cura di), Semplificazioni - sanzioni - ispezioni nel Jobs Act
2, Cacucci, Bari, 2016, p. 189 ff.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                               220
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                             Section: Miscellaneous




of the lower bargaining levels. Article 11 builds on two opportunities that the EFAT
expressly grants to the Member States’ social partners. The first one, fully consistent with the
method of European Social Dialogue, is the power (and duty) to implement the European
rules “in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour”
nationally (article 12 EFAT). The second is the possibility to adjust the employment
conditions of teleworkers to the particular characteristics of this form of work by means of
complementary agreements of an individual or collective nature (article 4 EFAT).
    Article 11 AI does not lay down a clear-cut rule of competence, in fact it refers to the
possibility to conclude agreements at the “competent level”. The terminology, however, is
meaningful. The use of the adjective “competent”, instead of more flexible terms such as
“appropriate”, can be interpreted as an implicit reference to the general rules on the
functioning of the collective bargaining system in force in the country at any given time. Such
rules, mainly set out by autonomous contractual sources, namely intersectoral agreements,
tend to favour the sectoral bargaining level, vesting it with a sort of coordinating authority
vis-à-vis the company and local levels, notwithstanding the increasing importance
acknowledged to the latter in the past three decades.
    Indeed, specific clauses on telework are present in industry-wide collective agreements of
prominent branches, such as trade, banking, telecommunications, clothing and cleaning,
embracing roughly 70% of employees in the private sector.43 Such texts show many
similarities with one another, regardless of the amount of time that separates the different
experiences. This is clearly due to their common origin in the AI, but also suggests that the
regulation of telework at the national level has been almost unresponsive to the increasing
opportunities and challenges offered by the technological development. In this regard the
case of the clothing sector is particularly noteworthy, since it consists of a series of branch
agreements (including apparel, leather, fashion, footwear) whose enactment encompasses the
time span from 2004 to 2014, simply repeating the same template-clauses.
    The collectively negotiated clauses can be divided into two categories. Those falling into
the first category basically reproduce the contents of the AI, on matters such as the voluntary
character of telework, the principle of equal treatment between teleworkers and comparable
standard workers, data protection and the health and safety obligations imposed on the
employers. Clauses of the second kind, instead, translate the general principles laid down at
the intersectoral level into operational rules adjusted to the specific sectoral needs.
    The latter address in particular topics such as work patterns, the degree to which
teleworkers can self-organize they work hours, the typologies of remote workplaces from
which the work obligation can be discharged, the criteria that govern the selection among
the possible remote workplaces, the teleworkers’ right to training, the conditions for using
remote surveillance devices and treating the data collected during the execution of the work
performance, information and dialogue between employers and employee representatives,
and the guarantee of the collective rights of teleworkers.



43The texts of the collective agreements cited in this essay can be consulted in the Archive of the iRel project’s
internet site, at: https://irel.fmb.unimore.it/archive/

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                     221
     Iacopo Senatori                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                    Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous




    Company-level agreements are also present, but with a narrow coverage, mostly
corresponding to large companies of the banking, computer and energy sectors. Their
function is to integrate and bring to a deeper level of detail the provisions laid down at the
sectoral level, sometimes adding room for a further customization of the organizational
arrangements. They deal with topics encompassing in particular the possibility to alternate
periods of remote and on-premise work, the contents of training programmes for
teleworkers, the allocation between the parties of the costs incurred for work equipment and
its maintenance while working from home, the specific arrangements for monitoring and
assessing the work performance, and the criteria for employees to be eligible as teleworkers.
    To summarize this point, an industry-specific regulation of telework is present in the
majority of sectors in Italy. Second-level agreements are not as much common and are
concentrated only in specific sectors. However, where company agreements exist, they show
a sound degree of coordination with the higher bargaining level.


4.2. Rationale: the social and economic functions of telework.

    The EFAT and the AI consider telework as a way to modernize the organization of the
company, reconcile work and private life and entrust workers with more autonomy in the
fulfilment of their tasks. Collective agreements at the company and sectoral levels mainly
reaffirm this win-win function. Nonetheless, in some experiences, mainly (but not
necessarily) at the company level, other possible purposes are attached to this form of
flexibility.
    For instance, environmental sustainability, linked to a lower impact of the working
population on the transport service, is mentioned in several agreements of sectoral as well as
company level.44 . In other cases, telework is presented as a special labour market instrument,
to be activated as an alternative to mass layoffs or the geographical mobility of workers in
case of transfer of a plant;45 or as a “disaster recovery” solution aimed at ensuring the
continuity of production in cases of temporary closure of the offices due to force majeure;
or even as a measure of social support addressed to special categories of workers.46
    To summarize this point, collective bargaining in Italy brought about a multi-pattern
implementation of telework that has been reiterated more than a decade later in the
experience of “agile work” (see below at section 8). Genetically characterized, according to
its institutive sources, by the mission of accommodating the (sometimes) conflicting interests
between organizational efficiency and personal wellbeing, this form of work is recognized in
practice as an inherently flexible and versatile organizational resource that can be adjusted to
a wide range of circumstances, depending on the mutual willingness of the parties. This
outcome is probably the result of a broad understanding of the personal and productive
needs mentioned in the definitory sources. It suggests that the teleological framework laid

44 Trade and services 2001, prior to the signature of the EFAT and the AI; banking 2015; telecommunications
2013; IBM 2003.
45 GDF Suez 2013, energy sector; Bassilichi 2016, metalworking sector.
46 Both the latter functions are mentioned in the Groupama agreement 2014, insurance sector.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                               222
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous




down at the highest regulatory levels is not interpreted by the players “on the ground” as a
strictly binding provision, but rather as a general guiding concept, subject to be implemented
differently depending on the case-specific balance between the purposes and interests
pursued by the parties.
    This is confirmed by the observation of the array of choices made by the contracting
parties about the priority and eligibility criteria that regulate the access to telework. While
some agreements neglect the issue and put all the workers on the same standing, others grant
special prerogatives to specific categories, ranging from caregivers to long-distance
commuters, physically impaired workers and workers above a certain seniority level.


4.3. Definitions and structural elements of telework.

    Sectoral collective agreements generally reaffirm the elements that define telework
according to the EFAT and the AI. These are, as mentioned in section 3 above, the
circumstance that work is performed outside the employer’s premises “on a regular basis”,
provided that the work obligation could also be executed on site,47 and the use of information
technologies in the organization and the performance of the work activity.
    Another element, which is not strictly included in the definition of telework, but which
nonetheless can be qualified as a structural ingredient in the light of its fundamental
importance, is its voluntary nature. The voluntary nature, which is such for both the workers
and the employers, entails the reversibility of the passage to telework and the right to refuse
a proposal to establish a telework arrangement. It is also consistent with a clause, that recurs
frequently in company agreements, that makes the activation of telework subject to an
organizational assessment by the employer48 on the condition that the work activity can be
carried out remotely without causing any detriment to the production process.
    While the above definitory elements are present in all the sectoral and company
agreements, some texts integrate the definitions and the categorizations, to the effect of
circumscribing further and more clearly the scope of the relevant regulations and the limits
to the establishment of a telework arrangement. For instance, the national agreement for the
clothing industry of 2004 makes it clear that the flexibility of time and space patterns alone
does not suffice to qualify an organizational arrangement as telework. Therefore, the cases
when the activity is performed remotely without the use of ICT, or when ICT is used on the
company’s premises, will not be covered by the telework regulations.
    A remarkable element recurring in several sectoral and company agreements concerns the
classification of the different categories of telework on the grounds of the place (different
from the company’s main premises) where the activity is performed. The most common
distinction is between telework performed at the worker’s home and from work centres,
company hubs and other venues of such kind, that are usually part of the company’s

47 Which excludes from the definition of telework the category of mobile workers, as expressly stated by certain
sectoral agreements, e.g. Cleaning-multiservice sectoral agreement of 2005.
48 Sometimes prior consultation with the trade unions: e.g. Unicredit 2010, banking sector, only for

circumstances where the number of requests exceeds the threshold of available positions.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                   223
     Iacopo Senatori                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




properties.49 This distinction is not merely descriptive, since home-based telework work is
covered by special protective rules, for instance limiting the conditions and modalities of a
workplace inspection by the employer, in line with the EFAT provisions.
    Some agreements push the degree of flexibility one step further, to the extent of
envisaging a third category, named “mobile” telework, corresponding to a performance
executed with no fixed workstation, with the support of computer and connection devices.50
    Other texts, mainly at the company level, have introduced some form of rotation between
remote work and work performed on the premises of the company. An example is the
“hotdesking” mode envisaged by the ENEL agreement of 2011, under whose terms each
teleworker is obliged to return to the office at least one day per week, alternating with
colleagues on shared workstations. Arrangements of this kind, which are present in other
bargaining experiences as well,51 suggest that the negotiating parties can opt for a broad
interpretation of the requirement that telework should be performed remotely “on a regular
basis”, encompassing cases in which the remote performance is not continuous or
permanent, provided that it is not merely occasional.
    More generally, the experiences summarized above confirm the impression that the
telework should be not simply considered as a form of homework enhanced by digital
technologies and fast internet connectivity. In fact, the general regulation provided by the
EFAT and implemented nationally by the AI is consistent with multiple organizational
settings characterized by different degrees of “agility”. This was precisely the aim of the
European social partners, who expressly stated in the first section of the EFAT the
preference for a “definition of telework that permits to cover various forms of regular
telework”, in order to keep the pace with a “wide and fast evolving spectrum of
circumstances and practices”.
    This raises the question of whether, and to what extent, the flexible character originally
embodied in the regulatory framework of telework makes the instrument still responsive to
the opportunities and the problems attached to the current state of technological progress.


4.4. Organization of the work performance.

    Article 8 of the AI provides that teleworkers should manage autonomously the
organization of their working time, within the framework of the applicable legislation and
collective agreements and in accordance with the company directives. It also stipulates that
the workload and performance standards of the teleworker are equivalent to those of
comparable workers employed at the employer’s premises. Both the provisions represent a
plain transposition of article 9 of the EFAT.
    While such general regulatory framework grants broad margins to the self-organization
of teleworkers, the implementing agreements adopt a more cautious approach. Many of them
classify the departure from the ordinary rules on the number and the distribution of daily

49 For instance, sectoral agreement of telecommunications 2015.
50 Enel 2011, energy sector; see also national agreement for the banking sector 31 March 2015.
51 E.g. Sara 2013, insurance sector; Nestlé 2010, food sector.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                 224
     Iacopo Senatori                                                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                             Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous




hours as a mere possibility for teleworkers.52 Others, in a similar vein pose the equivalence
of work patterns between remote and on-site workers as a default rule that the individual
parties remain free to derogate by means of a specific agreement. In some cases, teleworkers
are left free to determine their daily working hours but remain bound to respect the overall
time parameters for the longer reference period, as laid down by the applicable sectoral
agreement.53
    A vast majority of texts, especially at the company level, make sure that, in case a flexible
work pattern applies, the teleworker remains available on call in specific time spans to ensure
the coordination with the overall organizational process.
    Quite rare are, instead, the extreme cases of a rigid and not amendable correspondence
of schedules between telework and work on the premises54 and, at the opposite end of the
spectrum, of a total exemption of the teleworkers from the legal and contractual regulations
on working time, resulting from the broad freedom to organize their schedules.55 It should
not be overlooked that, in the latter case, freedom and flexibility come for the teleworker at
the cost of a weakening (if not a total deprivation) of the protections attached to working
time rules.
    Such a “mild” implementation of this part of the framework regulations suggests that the
idea of “modernizing the organization of work” promoted by the European social partners
was probably too ambitious and visionary for the time when the EFAT entered into force,
whereas the real functioning of production processes required (and to a large extent still
requires in more recent years: see below, at the section 8, the considerations on agile work
and collective bargaining) a close synchronization between each single work activity and the
organization as a whole.
    This cautions approach may also be rooted in the EFAT clause which stipulates the
mandatory equivalence between the standards on workload and work performance of
teleworkers and on-site employees. In fact, in the practice of employment relations, time has
always represented the most objective measure of workloads and a reliable benchmark of the
correct fulfilment of the work obligation. Thus, lacking any alternative criterion to organize
and assess the activity performed in telework mode, the social partners have probably
considered the strict harmonization of work patterns (both as long as the number and the
distribution of work hours is concerned) as the most secure means to ensure the compliance
with the equivalence rule and protect the rights of teleworkers.


4.5. Employment conditions, rights and obligations of teleworkers.

   Besides declaring that teleworkers benefit from the same rights granted by statutes and
collective agreements to comparable on-site workers, the EFAT and the AI clearly hold the
employer accountable for the effective protection of those rights, placing on him a series of

52 E.g. Telecommunications 2013; Clothing 2004.
53 Nestlè, food, 2010.
54 Cleaning-multiservice 2005; Unicredit 2010, banking sector.
55 ENEL 2011.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                        225
     Iacopo Senatori                                                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                             Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous




obligations with regard to employment conditions, data protection, surveillance, work
equipment, health and safety and training. This set of prescriptions, which stand at the core
of the framework regulation of telework, is translated by collective agreements of both
sectoral and company level into specific norms and practices, which at times add further
details. The implementing sources also attempt to lay down the conditions for a proper
exercise of the managerial prerogatives, while also imposing on teleworkers a duty to
cooperate with a view to facilitating the correct fulfilment of the employer’s obligations.
    For instance, with regard to the right to training enjoyed by teleworker, some agreements
extend its contents beyond the technical aspects concerning the remote performance, to
encompass cultural profiles and other relational skills, like the attitude to privilege a result-
oriented attitude to work.56
    Another recurrent topic is the quantification of the compensation due by the companies
for the utility costs incurred by home-based teleworkers (telephone, electricity and the like).
Such compensations supplement the obligation normally taken by the employer to supply
the equipment necessary for the performance of work. In fact, the vast majority of the
agreements do not consider the possibility afforded by the EFAT and the AI to execute the
work activity by means of the worker’s own devices.
    It is normally the task of company agreements to lay down a detailed regulation of the
duties and prerogatives of the parties as regards the adequacy of the workplace and the work
equipment to the requirements on health and safety and data protection. This includes inter
alia the conditions and limits of the employer’s power to access and inspect the teleworker’s
home (meant at ascertaining the appropriateness of the selected workplace), the measures to
be adopted by the teleworker to prevent accidents and data breach (including confidentiality
obligations and the information that the employer must provide on the security software
installed), the restrictions to the use of work equipment for personal purposes and the liability
for damages occurred to the technological devices.
    Unsurprisingly, the exercise of surveillance and control over the work performance
executed remotely is a typical concern of collective agreements, especially at the company
level. Remote monitoring is in principle allowed by the framework regulations, within the
limits of the proportionality between means and objectives. Some texts substantiate this
prescription by permitting the collection of data and their use for performance assessment
purposes, under the assumption that such practice is instrumental to the execution of the
work performance and therefore consistent with privacy legislation (article 4 of the Workers’
Statute).57 In other cases the agreement, while admitting that the typical managerial
prerogatives can be exercised by means of telecommunication instruments, expressly
prevents the employer from using work appliances (such as microphones and webcams) for
remote surveillance purposes.58
    The exercise of managerial prerogatives in the context of telework is regulated by most
of the agreements in line with the standard hierarchical model based on direction and


56 Nestlè, food, 2010.
57 Banking sector 2013; Nestlè, food, 2010.
58 ENEL, energy, 2011.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                        226
     Iacopo Senatori                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                           Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                              Section: Miscellaneous




control.59 However, some cases envisage a possible shift towards result-oriented solutions:
for instance, the national agreement for the telecommunication sector of 2013 opens to the
possibility of a performance assessment based on the accomplishment of targets adjusted to
the daily or weekly duration of the work activity, whereas the 2013 agreement at Sara
(insurance) provides for the possibility to control the work performance by means of
periodical reporting.


4.6. Collective relations.

    The collective agreements at the sectoral and company level generally confirm the EFAT
and AI provisions that grant teleworkers the same collective rights as enjoyed by their on-
premises peers. The specific instruments created for that purpose mainly aim at guaranteeing
teleworkers the possibility to maintain a permanent communication with their
representatives and co-workers. Examples include the access to electronic boards60 and
intranet networks.61 The participation in person to trade union meetings is always granted to
teleworkers.
    However, only in rare cases the trade unions or other collective representation bodies are
directly involved in decisions concerning the strategies and the problems linked to the
implementation of telework in each organization. One example is the Unicredit agreement
of 2010 (banking sector), which provides for the activation of a joint examination of the
signatory parties in case the applications for telework positions exceed the threshold of 8%
of the total workforce.
    A remarkable experience is the Bipartite Observatory established by the national
agreement for the telecommunications sector signed in 2013. The prerogatives of the
observatory encompass the analysis, assessment and discussion on every issue related to
telework, while one of the aims is to set up a “competence center”, open to external
participants, to deal with the implementation of modern ICT in the work activity.


5. The Italian way to smart working between law and collective bargaining:
regulatory purposes and techniques.

   As it has been emphasized above, one of the questions surrounding the legal and
contractual norms on agile work in Italy is whether they simply represent a further step in
the regulations of remote working or, instead, they also offer a favourable regulatory
framework to promote smart working, thus combining space-time flexibility of the work
performance and work organization by objectives. To discuss the issue in deeper detail, it is
necessary to analyse the evolution of these legal and contractual regulations to identify their
inspiring rationale.

59 E.g. Graphics 2008.
60 E.g. Sara, insurance sector, 2013.
61 Nestlé, food sector, 2010.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                      227
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                  Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous




5.1. In the private sector.

    The initiatives and activities expressly defined, or in any case related to, forms of smart
working, have been launched, in recent years, mainly by collective bargaining, as a pilot
experiment to test the potential of this work organization model, well before the approval of
the Law n. 81/2017.
    These are mainly company collective agreements, stipulated above all in the banking /
insurance sector,62 but also in those relating to food products,63 metal processing64 and
energy / oil.65
    The classification used in the texts of the company-level agreements to indicate the forms
of space-time flexibility of the work performance are quite diverse: above all smart working66,
sometimes flexible working,67 rarely agile working.68
    These collective agreements regulate the possibility of carrying out work outside the
company premises, defining, among other aspects: potential beneficiaries; coordinates of
space and time of the work performance; remuneration to be paid; health and safety
protection measures; limits to the managerial power of control in compliance with privacy
rules; confidentiality obligations.69
    The purposes agreed by the signatory parties concern the improvement of work-life
balance for employees, the promotion of change management in the company strategies, the
increase of productivity. However, examining the contents of the collective agreements, it
has been pointed out that the goal actually achieved, if not really intentionally pursued, has
been no more than simply regulating advanced remote work, so as to escape the rigidity of
the teleworking regulation examined above.70 In this respect, more detailed comments will
follow the subsequent in-depth analysis of the collective agreements (section 8).
    At this stage of the analysis, it is worth considering that, due to the existing regulatory
framework described above, the legislative intervention was not necessary at all to let



62 Intesa Sanpaolo 2014, BNL 2015, BNP 2015, Zurich 2015.
63 Nestlè 2012, Barilla 2015.
64 General Motors Powertrain 2015.
65 Snam 2015, ENI 2017, ENEL 2017.
66 Barilla 2 March 2015, Zurich 23 September 2015, Snam 26 November 2015, Euler Hermes 15 January 2016,

Randstad 2 February 2016, AXA 12 April 2016, Philip Morris 21 September 2016, Eni, 6 February 2017, Enel
4 April 2017, Ferrovie dello Stato 2 May 2017, Siemens 6 June 2017.
67 Intesa S. Paolo 10 December 2014, BNL 15 July 2015, Banca Etica 28 October 2015.
68 BNP 2 November 2015, Baxi 14 September 2016.
69 Tiraboschi M., Dagnino E., Tomassetti P., Tourres C., Il “lavoro agile” nella contrattazione collettiva oggi, Working

Paper Adapt, 2, 2016,
https://moodle.adaptland.it/pluginfile.php/26070/mod_resource/content/0/lavoro_agile_contrattazione_w
p_3.2.pdf; Dagnino E., Menegotto M., Pelusi L.M., Tiraboschi M., Guida pratica al lavoro agile dopo la legge n.
81/2017, Adapt University Press, Modena, 2017, 109 ff; Cairoli S., Galli G., Verzaro M., Rocchi L.,
Contrattazione collettiva. Periodo I semestre 2017, in Galli G., Cairoli S., Osservatorio contrattazione collettiva, Rivista
Giuridica del Lavoro., 2017, III, 88; Monterossi L., Il lavoro agile nell’accordo Enel 4 aprile 2017, anche alla luce della
sopravvenuta l.n. 81/2017, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro., 2017, III, 199 ff..; Occhino A., Il lavoro agile nella
contrattazione collettiva, in Lavoro nelle Pubbliche Amministrazioni, 2018, 81 ff.
70 Spinelli C., Tecnologie digitali e lavoro agile, Cacucci, Bari, 2018.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                             228
 Iacopo Senatori                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                  Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                 Section: Miscellaneous




companies practising smart working. This is a crucial point to have in mind also with respect
to the following analysis of the contents of the Law No. 81/2017 on agile work.
   The rationale of this statutory law could be identified with the aim to systematise the
previous negotiating experiences in order to overcome the problem of the limited
effectiveness of collective agreements, which in the Italian legal system do not have erga omnes
validity, so as to define a regulatory framework to support the adoption of innovative
organizational models, mainly to the benefit of small and medium-sized enterprises. In this
regard, for example, one should take into account the legislative provisions granting specific
prerogatives to agile workers, such as the right to disconnect (art.19, c. 1), to notice in case
of termination of agile work (art.19, c. 2) and to lifelong learning (art. 20, c. 2). These rights,
albeit conditioned to an individual negotiation, represent an improvement with respect to
the regulation adopted by the collective agreements, which had instead completely neglected
them. Another important provision to highlight, which is consistent with the promotion of
agile work, foresees that “the tax and social security incentives that may be recognized in
relation to increases in productivity and efficiency of subordinate work are also applicable
when the work is performed in an agile way” (art. 18, c. 4).
   In conclusion, although limited to a few relevant profiles, the law fulfils a strengthening
function with respect to collective bargaining in order to allow access to remote work - more
or less smart, as will be seen - to the extent that it allows employers and employees who
adopt it to achieve effects not otherwise achievable.


5.2. In the public sector.

    Public administrations have experimented and then regulated smart working, as already
mentioned in section 3.1 above, in the perspective of work-life balance.
    On the basis of the provisions of the aforementioned article 14, par. 3, Law No.
124/2015, concerning the testing of “new space-time flexible ways of carrying out work
performance”, and following the pilot experiences promoted by the Department for Equal
Opportunities, in June 2017, the Directive of the President of the Council of Ministers n.
3/2017 was approved. It laid down the guidelines for the adoption of work organization
measures aimed at work-life balance and, in this perspective, provided instructions on the
use of flexibility at work, “the so-called agile or smart working”, for the public
administrations. Article 18, par. 3, Law n. 81/2017 then extended the application of the legal
regulations on agile work to public administrations, provided that they are compatible, thus
recognising as relevant also in the public sector the aim of improving organizational
performance and productivity.
    The introduction of “agile work”, then, even in public administrations is intended to
trigger virtuous processes of organisational and managerial modernisation so as to produce
positive results not only on work-life balance and, therefore, on the organizational well-being
of workers, but also on the effectiveness and efficiency of the administrative action. This
approach can be confirmed looking at the contents of the Directive No. 3/2017, which,


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                         229
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                   Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                      Section: Miscellaneous




although slightly prior to the law on agile work, takes into account the related parliamentary
debate and is widely influenced by it.
    However, it may at first appear contradictory that the legislator, in the context of the same
Law No. 124/2015, on the one hand, has promoted flexible work which implies personnel
management strategies inspired by mutual trust and collaborative relationships with
employees and, on the other hand, has emphasized the exercise of the power of control over
the work performance, revisiting the rules on disciplinary proceedings and sickness
controls,71 and imposing limits to collective bargaining on the composition of the funds for
the financing of performance-related pay, with reference to the consequences of the absences
from work.72
    Indeed, the legislator’s plan is plenty coherent considering that even agile work, due to its
flexibility features, can be useful for a strategic vision aimed at combating absenteeism and
achieving cost savings. Furthermore, the approach of checking the work performance by
objectives could make it easier to find the “lazybones” than checking their working on site.
    Finally, agile work is fully consistent with the importance that the legislator ascribes to the
measurement and assessment of work performance in public administrations, the regulation
of which was recently revised with the Legislative Decree No. 74/2017. In this regard, the
Directive No. 3/2017 specifies that work performance evaluation is an enabling condition
for an effective use of agile work, the implementation of which, in turn, must be subject to
organizational and individual performance assessment (par. 5).
    The latest renewals of the collective agreements, for the three-year period 2016-18,
stipulated with great delay and after a long period of freezing of negotiations in the public
sector, do not deal with the implementation of agile work, as their priorities have been related
to the updating of wages and working conditions. Nevertheless, the establishment of joint
public administration-trade unions bodies should not be overlooked, because it is intended
to achieve a participatory involvement of trade unions on developing innovative
organisational plans regarding public administrations. These joint public administration-trade
unions bodies are allowed to carry out preparatory activities for second-level collective
bargaining, submitting proposals. It is worth considering, in this regard, that among the issues
under their responsibility, much attention is focused on the workers’ risks connected to the
use, or perhaps we should better say, to the abuse of technology - in general and with specific
reference to agile work – as well as on work-life balance measures. Moreover, it is on the
second level collective agreements to regulate the effects of the technological innovation on
the quality of work and the employees’ skills.73




71 Art. 55 ff., modified by Legislative Decree No. 75/2017, implementing Law No. 124/2015.
72 Art. 11, c. 1, lett. g), Legislative Decree No. 75/2017.
73 Art. 7, c. 6, lett. v), ccnl Funzioni Centrali; art. 7, c. 4, lett. t), ccnl Funzioni Locali; art. 22, c. 4, lett. c9), art.

42, c. 3, lett. o), art. 68, c. 4, lett. o), ccnl Istruzione e Ricerca; art. 8, c. 5, lett. k), ccnl Comparto Sanità.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                               230
 Iacopo Senatori                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous




6. Law No. 81/2017 on agile work.

    The legal regulations on agile work have been adopted in order to establish a general
framework within which the early schemes already experimented by means of collective
agreements would have been developed and extended.
    At the end of January 2016, the Renzi Government adopted a draft bill in order to
integrate the discipline of self-employed work, which also dealt with smart-working. In this
regard, the government proposed a minimal regulation, to be implemented and enhanced by
collective agreements (art. 20), mainly aiming at introducing more flexibility in the
employment relationships, with specific regard to working time and workplace (A.S. 2233)
    This was not the only draft bill on this matter submitted to the Parliament. Another
proposal was presented by a group of Senators (A.S. 2229) as a set of measures
complementary to the government draft bill, with the declared ambitious goal to provide for
a legal framework to new patterns of work organisation linked to digital economy. The
specific aim pursued was to promote a higher degree of workers’ autonomy and responsibility
in performing work, so to increase the relevance of performance-oriented job evaluation and
remuneration policies.
    The amended text of the Government draft bill, which was enacted as Law No. 81/2017,
is the result of a mix of the provisions originally contained into the two drafts.


6.1 The legal definition of agile work, its juridical qualification and the principle of
consensus.

    The declared purposes pursued by Law No. 81/2017, whose articles 18-23 regulate agile
work, according to the term preferred by the legislator, are identified, such as in the previous
collective agreements, in increasing companies’ competitiveness as well as facilitating
employees’ work-life balance.
    Agile work is defined as “a peculiar execution mode of the employment relationship
agreed by the parties, encompassing forms of organisation by stages, cycles and objectives,
without strict time and place constraints, possibly involving the use of technological tools
for carrying out the work activity. Work is performed partly inside the company premises
and partly outside, without a fixed location, provided that the maximum weekly and daily
working time established by statutory law and collective bargaining are respected” (Article
18, paragraph 1).
    The qualifying element of the agile work performance is constituted by the flexibility in time
and space of its execution, consequent to the possibility of carrying it out “without strict time
and place constraints”. The so-called space and time de-structuring of the work performance
is further characterized by mobility, which means that part of the work activity is performed
in a place other than the employer's premises, which remains indeterminate and
interchangeable, while working time flexibility has to be set in compliance with maximum
weekly and daily working time established by statutory law and collective bargaining. The use
of technological tools is considered only as a possibility. In this regard, the choice of the

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                        231
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous




legislator is consistent with the organizational studies on smart working, which do not
attribute a qualifying value to the use of technology, but only a supporting function.
    Agile work is, therefore, subordinate work,74 remote work, not necessarily supported by
technological tools, which allows the employee a space of “organizational autonomy” in
managing the time and place of his/her work performance. Therefore, the agile worker
carries out flexible work as to the time and place of its performance, which may involve the
support of ICT tools and can be inserted in organisational contexts structured by “stages,
cycles and objectives”. It is mainly within the latter organisational patterns that the
performance-oriented dimension of agile work can be appreciated.
    According to the legal definition, agile work has been qualified either as a peculiar mode
to perform subordinate work75 or as a species of the genus telework.76
    These two alternative solutions rely on the different interpretation of the mobile character
of agile work, which can be performed partly inside the company premises and partly outside, without a
fixed location, compared to the definition of telework offered by the EU social partners’
Framework Agreement of 2002 and confirmed by the Intersectoral Agreement of 2004
reminded above.
    Agile work should be distinguished from telework because the latter is carried out outside
the employer’s premises on a regular basis, which means, according to some authors,
permanently outside the employer’s premises. On the contrary, in the view of other authors,
agile work should be considered as a – already known77 - form of telework, in particular
alternating telework, provided that the “regularity” of the work performance is interpreted
in terms of temporal continuity of its execution, which shall be not merely occasional.78 This
view is supported by a significant number of collective agreements, as it has been noted
above at section 4.
    However, another interpretative proposal –preferable indeed, in our view - to make a
distinction between telework and agile work can be suggested, focusing more on the use of
technological devices than on the mobility of the work performance. Using ICT tools, in



74  Critical remarks in Nappi S., Riforma del lavoro autonomo, lavoro agile e altri esercizi stilistici parlamentari di una
legislazione incompiuta, in Il Diritto del Mercato del Lavoro, 2017, 214-15; Levi A., Il lavoro agile nel contesto del processo di
destrutturazione della subordinazione, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 2019, I, 25 ff.
75 Pinto V., La flessibilità funzionale e i poteri del datore di lavoro, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 2016, I, 366; Allamprese

A., Pascucci F., La tutela della salute e della sicurezza del lavoratore «agile», in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 2017, I, 315;
Donini A., Nuova flessibilità spazio-temporale e tecnologie: l’idea del lavoro agile, in Tullini P. (ed.), Web e lavoro. Profili
evolutivi e di tutela, Giappichelli, Torino, 2017, 78 and 89; Bolego G., Commento all’art. 18, l. n. 81/2017, in De
Luca Tamajo R., Mazzotta O. (eds.), Commentario breve alle leggi sul lavoro, Kluwer-Cedam, Padova, 2018, 3129;
Martone M., Lo smart working nell’ordinamento italiano, in Diritti Lavori Mercati, 2018, 311.
76 Mazzotta O., Lo statuto del lavoratore autonomo ed il lavoro agile, in Il quotidiano giuridico, 1 febbraio 2016,

http://www.quotidianogiuridico.it/documents/2016/02/01/lo-statuto-del-lavoratore-autonomo-ed-il-
lavoro-agile; Tiraboschi M., Il lavoro agile tra legge e contrattazione collettiva: la tortuosa via italiana verso la modernizzazione
del diritto del lavoro, in Diritto delle Relazioni industriali, 4, 2017, 38; Peruzzi M., Sicurezza e agilità: quale tutela per lo
smart worker?, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2017, 2 ff.,
http://ojs.uniurb.it/index.php/dsl/article/view/960/904.
77 Gaeta L., Il telelavoro: legge e contrattazione, in Giornale di Diritto del Lavoro e delle Relazioni Industriali, 1995, 552.
78 Pascucci P., La tutela della salute e della sicurezza sul lavoro, Aras Ediz., Fano, 2014, 60.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                     232
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




fact, is a qualifying element for telework,79 while it is not necessary to perform agile work.
Being aware of the conventional value of the notion of remote work as work done outside
the company premises, telework and agile work certainly share this feature and therefore they
can be both considered as species of the genus remote work, which appear sometimes
overlapping, at certain conditions.80 More precisely, this is the case when agile work is
performed through mobile devices – which happens quite often – then it can be also qualified
as alternating telework.81 As a consequence, when agile work is performed as ICT mobile
remote work it will falls (also) under the scope of telework regulation and benefit from the
more favourable protections guaranteed on the workers’ side.
    In conclusion, it can be said that the legal definition of agile work includes a wide range
of ways of carrying out the work performance, depending on the degree of space-time
flexibility and productivity goals actually adopted in the organizational context, as well as the
use of technological tools. This means that both the mere reproduction of the ordinary work
procedures in a place other than the company premises, as well as the performance of work
with a high degree of mobility, connectivity and productivity – or, to put it differently, in a
genuinely “smart” way - can be identified as agile work, according to the legal definition of
it.
    For both telework and agile work the employee’s consent is necessary and cannot be
circumvented to transform the ordinary mode to perform work.
    As far as agile work is concerned, the general legal framework has been established by
Law No. 81/2017, while leaving to the parties of the employment contract to determine a
wide range of working conditions. More precisely, the so-called agile work pact82 has to
define: how the activity is performed outside the employer’s premises, especially concerning
times and places and, in particular, the rest times and the technical and organisational
measures necessary to ensure the employee’s disconnection (Article 19, paragraph 1); how
the employer’s directive, disciplinary and control powers have to be exercised, due to the
difficulties of putting them in action when the employee is not physically present and because
of the need of complying with the prohibition of remote surveillance (Article 21); what the
tools used by agile workers are, considering that, when the technological devices are provided
by the employer, he is responsible for their proper functioning and safety (Article 18,
paragraph 2). This agreement does not replace the employment contract but is parallel to it;

79 As stated in art. 2, par. 1, lett. b) of the Presidential Decree n. 70/1999, for the public sector, and in art. 1 of
the Intersectoral Framework Agreement of 2004, for the private sector (see above at section 4).
80 Santoro Passarelli G., Lavoro eterorganizzato, coordinato, agile e il telelavoro: un puzzle non facile da comporre in un’impresa

in via di trasformazione, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2017, 789; Casillo R., La subordinazione “agile”, in Diritti
Lavori Mercati, 2017, 10; Sartori A., Il lavoro agile nella pubblica amministrazione, in Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.),
Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Kluwer-Cedam, Padova, 2018, 486.
81 To support the proposed interpretative solution the “regularity” of telework shall be considered as referred

to the temporal continuity of the work performance. Moreover, it has to be reminded that, in the public sector,
the Framework Agreement of 23 March 2000 expressly consider the possibility to perform telework in alternate
mode.
82 Andreoni A., Il lavoro agile nel collegamento negoziale, in Rivista Giuridica del lavoro, 2018, 105; Gramano E., L’accordo

sul lavoro agile: forma e contenuto, in Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.), Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro autonomo
e del lavoro agile, Kluwer-Cedam, 2018, 509 ff.; Dagnino E., Menegotto M., Pelusi L.M., Tiraboschi M., Guida
pratica al lavoro agile dopo la legge n. 81/2017, Adapt University Press, Modena, 2017, 37 ff

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                   233
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




it can be concluded for a fixed or indefinite period and it is possible to terminate it with prior
notice (Article 19, paragraph 2)
    The agile work pact is signed in order to allow companies and workers to adapt agile work
to their specific needs.83 However, it is quite peculiar and even surprising how much the
legislator is confident on the contracting parties, who should be able to reach a balanced
composition of their respective interests, notwithstanding the unequal negotiating powers
they enjoy.84 The overestimated role recognised to the individual agreements implies some
risks, concerning first of all how ascertain that the worker’s consent is true85, but also how
to avoid discrimination when defining working conditions. A good example to consider in
this respect is the right to disconnect, which will be addressed below at section 6.2.2. It is
hardly convincing that the technical and organisational measures necessary to ensure the
disconnection of the worker from the technological work tools require individualised
regulation. On the contrary, the right to disconnect, like other aspects of agile work, can be
better regulated through collective bargaining, which, although ignored by the legislator, is
always guaranteed by the constitutional provision on trade union freedom (Article 39 of the
Italian Constitution).86


6.2. Some critical issues about agile work.

   Digital technologies and, above all, the hyper-connectivity that can result from their use
represent a potential threat to the workers’ physical and mental health. The workers are, in fact,
exposed to peculiar pathologies such as techno-stress, technological addiction, burnout.87
   Digital devices allow workers to be always-on and therefore constantly at disposal of the
employer, blurring the boundaries between professional and personal life, in contradiction
with the very purpose to which remote work is assumed to be oriented. At this regard, the



83 Martone M., Il lavoro agile nella l. 22 maggio 2017, n. 81: un inquadramento, in Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.),
Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Kluwer-Cedam, 2018, 465; Proia G., L’accordo
individuale e le modalità di esecuzione e di cessazione della prestazione di lavoro agile, in Fiorillo L., Perulli A., Il Jobs Act del
lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Giappichelli, Torino, 2018, 183.
84 Cuttone M., Oltre il paradigma dell’unità di luogo, tempo e azione: la revanche dell’autonomia individuale nella nuova

fattispecie di lavoro agile, in Gruppo Giovani Giuslavoristi Sapienza (eds.), Il lavoro agile nella disciplina legale, collettiva
e individuale, Working Paper C.S.D.L.E. «Massimo D'Antona» Collective Volumes, 6, 2017, 47-60.
85 Riccio A., L’accordo di lavoro agile e il possibile ruolo della certificazione, in Gruppo Giovani Giuslavoristi Sapienza

(eds.), Il lavoro agile nella disciplina legale, collettiva e individuale, Working Paper C.S.D.L.E. «Massimo D'Antona»
Collective Volumes, 6, 2017, 61 ff.
86 Recchia G., I rinvii al contratto collettivo nel lavoro agile tra ambiguità normative e ragionevole implementazione dell’istituto,

in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro, 2018, 1501.
87 Eu-Ohsa, Key trends and drivers of change in information and communication technologies and work location, Luxembourg,

Publications Office of the European Union, 2017, https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-
publications/publications/key-trends-and-drivers-change-information-and-communication/view; Popma J.,
The Janus face of the ‘New Ways of Work’. Rise, risks and regulation of nomadic work, ETUI Working Paper, 7, 2013,
https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Working-Papers/The-Janus-face-of-the-New-ways-of-Work-rise-risks-
and-regulation-of-nomadic-work.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                      234
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous




concept of time porosity88 has been adopted, to indicate the mutual interference and overlap
between working and personal time, which can give rise to personal and family conflicts.
   Finally, the pervasiveness of technologies exposes the worker to new forms of control by the
employer, which require the identification of new ways of balancing the protection of the
legitimate interests of the latter to the correct fulfilment of the work performance and the
defence of company assets with the protection of the worker’s freedom, dignity and privacy.
   All these issues, ignored by the company collective agreements that first regulated this
working method, were instead dealt with by Law No. 81/2017, even if with a few provisions,
which require to be integrated, as already mentioned, by the agile work pact on the execution
of the work performance outside the company premises.
   The critical issues highlighted require an in-depth analysis of the protections that the agile
worker can benefit from, with particular reference to the protection of his/her health and
safety, the recognition of a right to disconnect and the limits to the exercise of the employer's
power of control.


6.2.1. Health and safety.

    Regarding health and safety obligations, it is worth mentioning that the employer must
inform the agile worker and the workers’ representatives by written statement, at least on
annual basis, about all general and specific risks connected with the execution of working
tasks outside the company premises (Art. 22, par. 1).
    However, the employer does not comply with all his health and safety obligations towards
the agile workers solely by fulfilling this duty of information. Agile workers shall also benefit
from the universal protections foreseen by Legislative Decree N. 81/2008, albeit with the
necessary adjustments required by the fact that agile work is performed in part outside the
company premises, “without a fixed location”89.
    In particular, the protections provided to remote work with visual display units by Art. 3,
par. 10, Legislative Decree No. 81/2008 shall apply every time agile work is performed using
technological devices. The legal provision expressly refers to teleworkers recalling the legal
and contractual sources which regulate their work (see above, par. 2.1-2.2.), while including
in its scope of application all forms of remote work executed by means of ICT connections
and on a regular basis.
    Due to the interpretative option accepted for the qualification of agile work, as a species
of the genus remote work, partially overlapping teleworking, there is no obstacle to include
it within the scope of Art. 3, c. 10, as the conditions identified by the law are fulfilled. The
on line connection will exist, in fact, every time the agile work is carried out with the use of
technological tools, while the execution of the work performance partly inside and partly
outside the company premises does not affect its continuity.

88 Genin E., Proposal for a Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Time Porosity, in International Journal of Comparative
Labor Law and Industrial Relations, 2016, Vol. 32, Issue 3, 280 ff.
89 Malzani F., Il lavoro agile tra opportunità e nuovi rischi per il lavoratore, in Diritti Lavori Mercati, 2018, 28-29.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                            235
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                   Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                      Section: Miscellaneous




   Finally, agile workers are entitled to protection against injuries at work and occupational
diseases depending on the risks connected to the work performed outside the company
premises as well as against accidents occurred during the normal round trip route from the
place of residence to the one chosen to work outside the employer’s premises, provided that
the latter is chosen on the basis of the work performance or work-life balance needs and
meets reasonableness criteria (Art. 23).


6.2.2. The right to disconnect.

    The regulation of the right to disconnect offers a good example of the ambiguities of the
Italian legal framework.90
    From a comparative perspective, it is worth considering that the right to disconnect is
usually regulated by collective agreements, even when the legislator intervened on this
subject: in France, the Loi du Travail of 8 August 2016 provides that the right to disconnect
must be negotiated with trade union representatives; in Spain, the Organic Law of 5
December 2018, n. 3 defers the implementation of the right to disconnect to collective
agreements at sectoral or company level. On the contrary, in Italy, the “technical and
organizational measures necessary to ensure that the worker can disconnect from digital
devices” shall be defined through the individual negotiation between the employer and the
employee (Article 19, paragraph 1, Law No. 81/17).
    The former collective agreements on smart working did not put in place specific
mechanisms to control and even prevent the continuous connection of the workers, so it is
certainly important that this problem has been taken into account by the legislator. However,
deferring to the individual autonomy the regulation of the disconnection measures could
weaken their implementation. Indeed, the right to disconnect is no more than formally stated
by the law, without providing for specific tools that may be used for its implementation. As
a consequence, it cannot be avoided that agile work may be performed without properly
ensuring protection to the workers in order to face the time porosity.
    With regard to the qualification of the right to disconnect, is still controversial whether it
shoud be considered either as a new kind of worker’s digital right, linked to “hyper-
connectivity”, or simply a specification of the worker’s right to rest-time.
    The main problem arising with reference to the right to disconnect concerns its
effectiveness. In this regard, it is useful to include it into the measures to protect the workers’
health and safety, as a technological version of the right to rest, which is foreseen at EU




90 Dagnino E., Working Anytime, Anywhere’ and Working Time Provisions. Insights from the Italian Regulation of Smart
Working and the Right to Disconnect, in E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies, Volume 9, No. 3,
September-October 2020; Id., Il diritto alla disconnessione nella legge n. 81/2017 e nell’esperienza comparata, in Diritto
delle relazioni industriali, 4, 2017, 1024 ff.; Alessi C., Barbera M., Guaglianone L. (eds.), Impresa, lavoro e non lavoro
nell’economia digitale, Cacucci, Bari, 2019; Zucaro R., Il diritto alla disconnessione tra interesse collettivo e individuale.
Possibili profili di tutela, in Labour & Law Issues, vol. 5, no. 2, 214-233.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                              236
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




level91 and by national laws, as a right-duty of the worker which implies a corresponding
obligation for the employer.
   According to this interpretative approach, the regulation of the right to disconnect is
linked to rest time and the obligation of the employee to be at disposal of the employer.
Therefore, the minimum level of disconnection can be considered equivalent to the 11 hours
of daily rest. However, referring to this provision is not enough to solve the problem of
limiting the obligation of the agile worker to be available to be reached by the employer
beyond the limits of working time. This purpose could be better satisfied through the on-call
and/or stand-by service regime, including the related economic treatment.92
   Beyond this hypothesis, the worker will have the right to disconnect from the
technological tools and interrupt contacts with the employer (not responding to emails,
turning off the mobile phone, etc.), without thereby incurring the non-fulfilment of the work
performance and suffering disciplinary sanctions as a consequence.
   According to a different interpretative hypothesis, which highlights the potential prejudice
that unlimited availability causes to the personal sphere of the worker, the right to disconnect
should be placed among a new generation of human rights, the so-called digital rights, as an
expression of the right to privacy.93 The right to disconnect should therefore be defined as
the worker’s right to prevent the employer intruding on his/her personal life. This right
would thus be connected to the value of dignity and the needs of its protection and could
consequently benefit, in terms of effectiveness, from the supervisory action of the Privacy
Authority.
   Another crucial point to consider concerns the aims pursued by the legislator in regulating
agile work. According to Art. 18, par. 1 Law No. 81/2017, agile work has been fostered in
order to increase competitiveness and facilitate work-life balance.94 In addition, the 2019
budget law (Law No. 145/2018) has stressed the function of agile work as a work-life balance
tool, since the employer is obliged to recognise priority to requests of performing agile work
coming from women being in their three years after the end of maternity leave as well as of
workers who are parents of disable children (Art. 1, par. 3-bis Law No. 81/2017).
   However, the legal regulation does not foresee any condition or limitation to guarantee
that the individual agreement on agile working actually pursues the goal of work-life balance
and facilitates its accomplishment; it is assumed, instead, that better possibilities of re-
conciliation are the natural and virtuous result of this way of working.
   In this respect, it is worth considering that regulating agile work merely through individual
negotiation, along with the possibility to terminate the agreement with no substantive reason
(but simply respecting the notice term, even if extended for disabled workers), could be more


91 Articles. 3 ff.., Directive n. 2003/88/CE.
92 Altimari M., Il diritto alla disconnessione: un “vecchio” diritto ineffettivo?, in Occhino A. (ed.), Il lavoro e i suoi luoghi,
Vita e Pensiero, Milano, 2018, 181 ff.
93 Ray J. E., Le droit à la déconnexion, droit à la vie privée au XXI siècle, in Droit social, 2002, 939 ff.; Poletti D., Il c.d.

diritto alla disconnessione nel contesto dei «diritti digitali», in Responsabilità Civile e Previdenza, 2017, 1, 7 ff.
94 Di Meo R., Il diritto alla disconnessione nella prospettiva italiana e comparata, in Labour & Law Issues, 2017, vol. 3, n.

2, 17; Sena E., Lavoro agile e diritto alla disconnessione: l’incidenza delle nuove tecnologie sulle modalità di esecuzione della
prestazione di lavoro, in Il Diritto del Mercato del Lavoro, 2018, 245.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                  237
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                       Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




penalising especially for caregivers. The predictability of the changes of the pattern or
organization of working time, in fact, is particularly important for these workers.
    Dealing with parents caring of their children during the pandemic (infra, par. 7), a recent
provision has expressly recognised the right to disconnect as such, providing for any negative
consequences on the employment contract or remuneration to be excluded. The employer
and the employee can agree on specific measures or on call/stand by regime (Art. 2, par. 1
ter, Decree Law 13 March 2021, No. 30 converted with modification by Law 6 May 2021,
No. 61).


6.2.3. Employer’s power of control.

   The agreement signed between the employer and the employee shall also regulate the
employer’s power to direct and control the work performance outside the company premises
(Art. 21).
   In particular, electronic surveillance shall be exercised within the limits foreseen by Art.
4, Law No. 300/1970, as amended by Art. 23 of the Legislative Decree No. 151/2015.
   The new provision includes in the area of the lawful exercise of the employer’s power of
control – regardless of any trade union or administrative filter – the case of remote control
over the fulfilment of the work performance carried out through the (technological) “tools
used by the employee to do his/her work and the instruments for recording accesses and
attendance” (art. 4, c. 2).
   Agile work falls within the scope of this provision when it is performed with the support
of digital devices.95
   In order to allow the employer to make use of data and information collected thanks to
the technological tools used by the employee to do his/her work, Article 4, paragraph 3,
requires that the employee is informed about how data are collected and control is carried
out.
   In case of agile work such information is usually provided for or even negotiated with the
agile work pact.96
   In this regard, a relevant role could be played by collective bargaining at national level in
order to identify principles and criteria on the collection and management of data. These
rules could constitute the common regulatory framework for agile work pacts, thus ensuring
equal treatment and privacy protection for all agile workers, with reference to the work
performed outside the company premises.
   Moreover, according to the Italian Privacy Code the regulation on remote surveillance
(Article 4 Law No. 300/1970) applies to teleworking (and agile work), as long as the
confidentiality of the worker is respected (Article 114 Legislative Decree No. 196/2003).


95 Bellavista A., Il potere di controllo sul lavoratore e la tutela della riservatezza, in Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro
autonomo e del lavoro agile, Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.), Kluwer-Cedam, Padova, 2018, 627 ff.
96 Mainardi S., Il potere disciplinare e di controllo sulla prestazione del lavoratore agile, in Fiorillo L., Perulli A. (eds.), Il

Jobs Act del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Giappichelli, Torino, 2018, 222.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                    238
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous




    As a consequence, the employer must exercise the power of control respecting not only
labour law provisions, but also all the principles concerning worker’s data protection (e.g.
transparency, appropriate measures, etc.), taking into account the ruling of the Privacy
Authority. These decisions can be found in the guidelines relating to the respect of privacy
in the employment relationship and in the specific provisions regarding, for example, e-mail
use or geolocation,97 which is a particularly relevant issue in the case of agile work.


7. Agile work during the Covid-19 pandemic.

   The spread of smart working in Italy is being monitored by the Observatory of the
Politecnico of Milan since 2012. The latest survey prior to the spread of the Covid-19
pandemic, presented in 2019 on the basis of the data of the year before, highlighted a
phenomenon that was still limited, but growing, although mainly in big companies, and with
a high potential for development in SMEs and public administrations.
   During the pandemic, the use of remote work has been exponentially intensified, as it has
proved to be a suitable tool for protecting health and safety in the workplace without
compromising - or at least not seriously - business continuity and public services efficacy.
   According to a study published by the Bank of Italy, the percentage of remote workers
increased as a result of the pandemic from 1.4 percent in the second quarter of 2019 to 14.4
percent in the same period of 2020; the number of involved workers increased from less than
200,000 to 1.8 million. The research shows how the increase in remote working has
particularly affected women, workers in larger companies and sectors whose jobs are most
suitable for being carried out remotely. These data suggest an ambivalent interpretation, as
on the one hand they reveal what potential of widespread use smart work has, but on the
other hand they highlight the risk that in the post-pandemic period its use could produce
segregating effects with respect to some categories of workers. According to the same survey,
compared to those who have not worked remotely, on average the employees who have
benefited from agile work have achieved a higher monthly salary, due to the greater number
of hours worked, and have made less use of the Temporary Support Scheme (cassa
integrazione guadagni) to mitigate unemployment.98


7.1 In the private sector.

   The rules introduced by the Italian legislator since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic,
with a view to enhancing the capacity of agile work to operate as a swift and effective measure
to prevent the spread of the infection, have gradually given rise to a special regulatory regime


97Vademecum privacy e lavoro 2015.
98Depalo D., Giorgi F., Il lavoro da remoto in Italia durante la pandemia: i lavoratori del settore privato, Banca d’Italia,
Note Covid-19, 22 January 2021,
https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/note-covid-19/2021/Nota_Covid_1_DPFG.pdf.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                            239
     Iacopo Senatori                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
     Carla Spinelli                                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                        Section: Miscellaneous




which deviates significantly from the standard, with regard to both the establishment and the
functioning of agile work arrangements.99
   “Pandemic agile work” has taken two main forms:100
   1) the general form, applicable for the whole duration of the state of emergency
(repeatedly extended by the government), can be activated by a unilateral order of the
employer following simplified formal requirements. Pursuant to the introduction of this form
of “facilitated remotization”, a protocol for the containment and prevention of the diffusion
of Covid-19 in the workplaces, concluded by the social partners on 24 April 2020 and
updated on 6 April 2021, recommended to reorganize the work operations in agile mode
whenever the characteristics of the job and the activity so permitted;
   2) a special form, reserved to particular categories of workers that, as a consequence of
the pandemic, found themselves particularly exposed to risks for their health or to increased
caring responsibilities. The list of targeted workers has changed through time, with some
categories being included or excluded in force of subsequent provisions. Generally speaking,
the legislator addressed the following categories: disabled workers, workers with
immunodeficiencies, workers who are cohabitant with a family member belonging to one of
the aforesaid categories, workers in other conditions of health vulnerability that may increase
the risk of being affected by Covid-19; parents of children under the age of 14 affected by
school closures. This special form has been qualified as a “right”, insofar as the employer is
obliged to accept every request coming from an eligible worker. However, the employer’s
position is mitigated by the condition that the remotization needs to be compatible with the
inherent characteristics of the job and with the needs of the organization: which brings to
doubt about the possibility to qualify the worker’s position as a “right” in a strict sense.
   It is easy to note that the “pandemic agile work” deviates from one of the main
assumptions of the standard agile work scheme (and of telework as well), i.e. the principle
that activation of this form of flexibility should be voluntary for both the worker and the
employer. Although the severity of the reasons and the circumstances that led to this
legislative choice is undeniable, still a significant body of research (including the works
mentioned above in section 1) shows that the abrupt and unilateral shift to remote work may
cause a negative impact on the quality of work and the well-being of workers. This is
particularly true if, as in the Italian experience, the enhanced unilateral power is concentrated
on the moment of the activation of agile work, without being counterbalanced by any specific

99 Alessi C., Vallauri M. L., Il lavoro agile alla prova del Codiv-19, in Bonardi O., Carabelli U., D’Onghia M., Zoppoli
L. (eds.), Covid-19 e diritti dei lavoratori, Ediesse, Roma, 2020, 131 – 152; Biasi M., Brevi spunti sul lavoro da remoto
post-emergenziale, tra legge (lavoro agile) e contrattazione (smart working), in Lavoro e Previdenza Oggi, 2021, 3; Brollo M.,
Smart o Emergency Work? Il lavoro agile al tempo della pandemia, in Il Lavoro nella Giurisprudenza, n. 6, 2020, 553-570;
Senatori I., Il lavoro agile in cerca di identità. Cronaca legislativa di un quadriennio travagliato (2017-2020), in Basenghi F.,
Di Stefano L., Russo A., Senatori I. (eds.), Le politiche del lavoro della XVIII Legislatura: dal Decreto Dignità alla
gestione dell’emergenza Covid-19, Giappichelli, Turin, 2020, 57 – 90; Spinelli C., Lo smart working al tempo del
coronavirus, in Labor, 2021, Vol.1, 115-133; Tufo M., Il lavoro agile emergenziale: un mosaico difficile da ricomporre tra
poteri datoriali e diritti dei lavoratori, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 2021, Vol. 1, 41-60.
100 The normative framework has developed progressively since March 2020, with a stratification of measures

that followed the evolution of the pandemic. The updated reference is to the Law Decree No. 30 of 13 March
2021, converted into Law No. 61 of 6 May 2021, and Law Decree No. 52 of 22 April 2021. The archive of the
measures enacted by the Government and the Parliament can be consulted at:
https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/dettaglioArea/12.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                 240
  Iacopo Senatori                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                       Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous




accountability of the employer for the supervision on the implementing phase and the risks
that may stem from it (like self-isolation, the difficulties in managing the worker’s own
schedules and targets and the collapse of the work-life divide), with the result of shifting
those burdens on the worker.


7.2 In the public sector.

   As a consequence of the worsening of the health emergency and the succession of the
urgent government decrees, which led to inevitable repercussions of the supervening
legislation on the activity of public administrations, agile work was declared the ordinary way
of carrying out work in the public sector (Ministry Public Administration Directive No.
2/2020).
   During the pandemic and because of it, agile work has been operating (and is still so) in
the public sector according to derogatory rules foreseen by the emergency legislation,
significantly departing from the standard provided for by Law No. 81/2017. First of all, the
aims pursued are different. Agile work has become the preferred way to perform work given
that it guarantees at the same time workers’ health and safety protection and the continuity
of public services activity. Moreover, agile work is indeed home-working during this time,
because work is performed at the worker’s domicile (on a permanent or alternate basis,
depending on the varying severity of the pandemic and the public health orders consequently
adopted by the Government). Finally, to adopt agile work is no more necessary to sign agile
work pact, but it is on the unilateral power of the public administration to decide about it,
which is the most relevant change in agile work regulation (Art. 87, par. 1, lett. b, d.l. n.
18/2020, converted by Law No. 27/2020).
   In order to make it easier to transform the ordinary work performance in agile work, so
to extend its use, the workers are allowed to bring their own digital devices, and in this case
the public administrations are neither responsible for their good functioning and security 101
(Art. 87, par. 2), nor obliged to give the workers appropriate written information102 (Art. 87,
par. 1, lett. b)103.
   In the Summer of 2020, as the circulation of the virus was reduced, a gradual return to
performing work on site was planned, postponing the identification of further organizational
methods, to be adopted in relation to the evolution of the epidemiological situation, to any
subsequent decrees of the Minister for Public Administration (Art. 263, par. 1, Law Decree
No. 34/2020, conv. by Law No. 77/2020).
   However, the flexibility of time and place of work does not seem near to be overcome as
a relevant way of carrying out the work performance for civil servants, well beyond the mere
need for distancing still in progress because of the Covid-19 pandemic. This approach can
be unequivocally inferred from the regulatory provision which prescribes the obligation for


101 Article 18, par. 2, Law. No. 81/2017 does not apply in this case.
102 Written information prescribed by Art. 22-23, Law No. 81/2017 does not apply during the pandemic.
103 Russo M., Emergenza lavoro agile nella P.A., in giustiziacivile.com, 17 March 2020.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                               241
  Iacopo Senatori                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                                    Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous




the public administrations to draw up the Organizational Plan for Agile Work (POLA), as a
section of the Performance Plan, after consulting the trade unions, by January 31 of each
year (Art. 263, par. 4-bis, Law Decree No. 34/2020, converted by Law No. 77/2020, which
amended Art. 14, Law No. 124/2015).104
   The resurgence of the coronavirus that manifested in the Autumn of 2020 inspired the
Decree of the Minister for Public Administration of October 2020,105 which, pending the
definition of the POLA, on the one hand, has aimed at enhancing the unilateral prerogatives
of the public managers, to which entrusts the definition of the organizational methods for
carrying out agile work (Article 3) and, on the other hand, with reference to industrial
relations, has recalled the Protocol on health and safety of 24 July 2020, which, at point 8,
establishes that “pending a specific contractual definition of the flexible employment
relationship, public administrations shall ask the trade unions for advice pursuant to the
current contractual regulations”.
   Trade unions have harshly criticized this decree, as it would withhold regulatory
competences from collective bargaining to leave them to the discretionary power of the
public managers. Trade unions, in particular, have claimed the regulatory role of collective
bargaining with reference to all aspects that pertain not to the organizational structures but
to the agile employment relationship.
   During the first stage of the pandemic emergency trade unions’ claims were promoted in
relation to the most controversial aspects related to the economic and regulatory treatment
to be applied to agile workers.106 These claims emerged with particular reference to overtime
and leaves, the attribution of meal vouchers,107 the responsibility for the use of ICT
equipment, data protection and privacy issues, the right to disconnect.
   The legitimate request of the unions to negotiate the discipline of agile work is also
grounded on the structure of the sources of law in the public sector, which leaves a limited
space for intervention to individual autonomy, substantially restricted to the genetic phase
of the employment relationship, due to the principle of equal treatment that public
administrations are required to observe towards their employees (art. 45, Legislative decree
No. 165/2001).
   After the last political crisis, a new Government has been appointed under the leadership
of the Prime Minister prof. Mario Draghi, which has entrusted the Ministry for the public
administration to prof. Renato Brunetta. He had already held this role in the past, during the

104 Caruso B., Tra lasciti e rovine della pandemia: più o meno smart working?, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 2,
2020, I, 215 ff.; Esposito M., Smart Work e pubblico impiego: patti chiari, agilità lunga, in Martone M. (ed.), Il lavoro
da remoto. Per una riforma dello smart working oltre l’emergenza, La Tribuna, Roma, 2020, 147 ff.; Saracini P., Lo Smart
Working nel settore pubblico, in Carabelli U., Fassina L. (eds.), Smart Working: tutele e condizioni di lavoro, Ediesse,
Roma, 2021, 87 ff.
105 In force till 30 April 2021 according to the Decree of the Minister for the Public Administration 20 January

2021. The unilateral power to order agile work by the public administration is now stipulated by art. 11 bis
Decree Law 22 April 2021, n. 52 converted by Law 17 June 2021, No. 87 expiring on 31 December 2021.
106 In this regard, it has to be reminded that the Law No. 81/2017 provides that agile workers must be ensured

an equal treatment, from an economic and regulatory point of view, with respect to their on-premises colleagues
performing the same tasks (Article 20).
107 Trib. Venezia 8 July 2020, see Spinelli C., Lavoro agile emergenziale e diritto al buono pasto, in Rivista giuridica del

Lavoro giurisprudenza news, 2021, n. 2.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                            242
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous




economic crisis of 2008, earning a reputation as a detractor of public employees and
opponent of trade union organizations. However, looking at the programmatic lines of action
the Minister intends to take on in a so hard historical phase for our country, and particularly
to the “Pact for innovating work in the public sector and social cohesion”108 he has signed
with major trade unions, a different approach seems to have been adopted, according to
which future investments in agile work for public administrations can be expected.
   Nevertheless, the first measures put in place appears contradictory. On the one hand, the
fundamental role of collective agreements in defining a common regulatory framework for
agile work pacts,109 with regard to the right to disconnect and training in particular, has been
recognised by the Ministry Directive regarding the next collective bargaining session for
public administrations. On the other hand, according to the amendments to the POLA
regulations, the percentage of workers to be involved in agile work have been reduced (Art.
11 bis, Law Decree 22 April 2021, No. 52 converted by Law 17 June 2021, No. 87). More
precisely, the POLA must identify the methods of implementing agile work by providing
that at least 15 percent (instead of 60% as foreseen before) of employees who carry out
activities compatible with this method may use it; if the Plan is not adopted due to the inertia
of the public administration, the use of agile work must in any case be allowed to at least
15% (instead of 30%) of employees who so request.
   Now it is on trade unions to live up to the challenge, being aware of the necessity to
combine, when agile work is concerned, the collective dimension of representation with the
protection of the actual needs of workers considered as individuals.110


8. Agile work in collective bargaining (private sector).

8.1. Levels of collective bargaining.

   As it was pointed out in another section of this essay, the concept of “agile work” was
originally elaborated by a number of pioneering company agreements, which inspired the
enactment of Law No. 81 of 2017. Therefore, it comes by no surprise that the epicentre of
the contractual regulation of this form of work, in case a collective regulation does exist
(which is not statutorily requested, as it was pointed out above), normally lies at the company
level.
   One may argue that the normative construction of agile work responds to a need to
maximise the flexibility of the organizational solutions, bypassing the boundaries set by the
“institutionalized” framework of telework. In fact, as it was previously noted, a number of

108http://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/PATTO_INNOVAZIONE_LAVORO_PUBBLICO_CO

ESIONE_SOCIALE_txt.pdf
109 Zoppoli L., Dopo la digi-demia quale smart working per le pubbliche amministrazioni?, WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo

D’Antona” n. 421/2020.
110 On the possible adoption by social partners of regulatory schemes combining collective interest mediation

and the acknowledgement of individual needs, in the conceptual framework of the “capability approach”, see
Senatori I., The Irresistible Rise of Occupational Welfare in Italy: From Social Innovation to Regulatory Challenges, in The
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 2017, Vol. 33, No. 4, 441 – 462.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                            243
  Iacopo Senatori                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous




recent company agreements expressly claimed the intention of addressing a subject matter
other than telework, and the assumption that, by so doing, they would not by covered by the
relevant framework regulations.111 Nonetheless, it may be interesting to note that other
company agreements, concluded until the early ‘10s, attempted to increase the flexibility of
the standard telework arrangements while continuing to operate in the context of the
established European and national provisions.112
   The comparative analysis of the contents of the two regulatory models may explain
whether such divergence is justified on legal and organizational grounds. A marked
difference between the two groups may demonstrate that a deviation from telework rules
was substantively necessitated by specific organizational needs that the scheme of telework
was unsuited to meet. The issue will be addressed further in the next sub-sections. However,
the chronological proximity between the first group of agreements and the new legislation
of 2017 also indicates that the law has not only been influenced by these bargaining
experiences, but has reinforced their effectiveness and their purpose, as it has been pointed
out in section 5.1 above. In this way, one may argue, the law has accelerated the erosion of
the scope of telework regulations.
   It must be also pointed out that lately, in the wake of the COVID-19 experience, a
significant bargaining activity on agile work has been observed at higher levels. For instance,
the signatory parties of the national agreement for the metalworking sector, renewed on
February 5th 2021, agreed to entrust a bipartite commission with the task to lay down a
specific regulatory framework, addressing in particular the issues of disconnection, privacy,
the use of electronic equipment and trade union rights of agile workers. Similarly, specific
sectoral frameworks on agile work, containing principles and guidelines to be implemented
at the company level, have been established in telecommunications (30 July 2020), food
processing (31 July 2020) and insurance sectors (21 February 2021). They address topics like
the eligibility for remote work, the appropriateness of remote workplaces, the organization
of working time and the allocation of equipment and accessory costs.
   This new circumstance suggests that the abrupt acceleration in the adoption of agile work,
due to the pandemic, may have increased the attention for this instrument and the problems
that stem from it, highlighting the opportunity to establish a common regulatory floor at a
more general bargaining level. It may also indicate an intensification of the attention for the
issue from trade unions, normally better inclined towards multi-employer bargaining models
than their employer counterparts. This would represent a shift from the experience of the
past, when the initiative for the introduction of agile work has been mainly driven by the
companies, as the preambles of several agreements indicate.




111 E.g. Cedacri 14 April 2016 (ICT); Alba Leasing 2018; Banca Sella 2017; Findomestic 2017; Credito
cooperativo 2020, all of them belonging to the finance sector. See above, section 1.
112 E.g. the ENEL agreement mentioned above, with reference to the organization of time patterns and the

rotation between remote and on-site activity; similarly Nestlé 2010, Sara 2013.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                             244
  Iacopo Senatori                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                       Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous




8.2. Rationale. The economic and social functions of agile work. The legacy of Covid-
19.

   Collective agreements generally claim in their preambles the ambition to promote
productivity and work-life balance by means of a new organization of work based on time
and space flexibility. The same purpose is stated by the fundamental statutory source of agile
work (article 18, law n° 81/17, where, to be precise, the word “competitiveness” is used
instead of “productivity”), but that was also present in the archetypal model of telework.
Differently from the latter, however, many agile work agreements place a particular emphasis
on the capacity of agile work to bring about a new “philosophy” of the employment
relationship, rooted in the “responsibilization” of workers, their self-achievement and the
development of a result-oriented attitude and a condition of mutual trust.113
   The social and economic functions attached to this form of work are normally explained
to be complementary and mutually reinforcing. In fact, an engaged and committed worker,
who is also permitted to organize autonomously the execution of his/her work activity, is
expected to increase his/her wellbeing and, because of that, to provide a more efficient and
productive contribution to the company.114
   In addition to the list of purposes directly stemming from the legal definitions, a number
of agreements mention other expected positive outcomes of agile work, such as the reduction
of the environmental impact and the cost-saving opportunities for companies that may
downsize their office spaces.115 Furthermore, building on the pandemic experience, agile
work has been presented in some cases as a means to re-organize promptly the production
process in case of a public emergency.
   Hence it seems possible to conclude that in the intention of the social partners, and
beyond the purposive statements of the law (which the players feel themselves authorized to
interpret broadly), agile work embodies the nature of a flexible organizational tool that can
be adjusted to serve an open catalogue of different needs. In this sense, the experience of
agile work does not differ from that of telework, whose implementing sources have followed
in practice the same flexible approach.
   It must be also pointed out that, while the agreements normally do not indicate expressly
a hierarchy between the objectives stated in their preambles, the closer analysis of their
substantive provisions often permits to infer specific inclinations.
   A recurring feature is the inclusion of agile work into the broader context of “company
welfare” policies. In these cases, flexible time and space arrangements form part of the set
of initiatives and instruments aimed at improving the wellbeing of workers and their
protection from social risks. They are often targeted to specific categories, such as caregivers
and disabled persons, who are granted a priority in the access to this form of flexibility.116


113  E.g. HBG Online gaming 3 February 2020, trade and services sector; FCA 12 March 2018,
Automotive/Metalworking).
114 E.g. Coop Alleanza 3.0 16 December 2020, trade and services.
115 E.g. Poste Italiane 18 December 2020.
116 E.g. Hera, energy and chemical sector, 4 June 2020; Poste Italiane 18 december 2020; Coop Alleanza 3.0,

trade and services, 16 December 2020.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                               245
  Iacopo Senatori                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                 Section: Miscellaneous




    Interestingly, however, the pandemic does not seem to have accentuated the “welfaristic”
interpretation of agile work by collective bargaining. Of course, the legislation enacted to
tackle the health emergency had an impact. In fact, the law introduced special eligibility
criteria (which however do not correspond to a “right” to work remotely in a strict sense, as
every request is subject to approval by the manager, pursuant to a technical assessment on
the material possibility to execute the job remotely) in favour of workers particularly exposed
to risks for their health or affected by precautionary measures such as the closure of schools
and day care centres. Likewise, company agreements concluded since the second half of 2020
continue to pay attention to the needs of “special” categories of vulnerable workers, for
instance entitling them to extra days of remote work117 or to a priority access to the
instrument.118
    Nevertheless, the same agreements cited above advocate a widespread and “structural”
use of agile work, as a part of a strategy aimed at reshaping the organization of work on a
permanent basis. In this sense, it may be argued that the “mass experiment” carried out
throughout the year 2020 has convinced both companies and trade unions of the potential,
and to some extent the irreversibility, of the shift towards the flexible organizational patterns
enabled by modern technologies. The impression is confirmed by the progressive removal
from collective agreements of certain eligibility criteria that were common in the pre-
pandemic experience, and that expressed the idea of agile work as a “niche” HR instrument
serving a retention purpose, like the provisions that reserved the option to work remotely to
employees with a minimum seniority or with permanent contracts.


8.3. Definitions and structural elements of agile work.

    One significant discrepancy exists between the statutory definition of agile work and the
concept assumed by collective agreements: while the use of technological equipment is
merely possible and not strictly necessary according to the law, the agreements consider it as
a prerequisite. For instance, the text signed at Coop Alleanza 3.0 on 16 December 2020
describes the innovation of work organization, encompassing the adoption of agile work
arrangements, as functionally linked to the introduction of social collaboration instruments
like Office 365. And indeed, all the main problems that the agreements aim at handling, such
as workers’ surveillance and the right to disconnect, result from the massive use of remote
communication technologies in the work process.
    The other statutorily constitutive elements, that receive a detailed regulation in the
agreements, are the rotation between remote and on-site activity (meaning that work shall
not be executed remotely on a permanent basis) and the absence of a predetermined
workplace when the activity is performed outside the premises of the company.
    As for the first element, the implementing solutions obviously vary case by case. Normally
the rotation is planned on a weekly basis, meaning that each week the work must be

117 The TIM agreement signed on 4 August 20 grants this prerogative to pregnant women, parents and
oncological patients.
118 Poste Italiane 18 December 2020.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                         246
  Iacopo Senatori                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                           Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous




performed in part on premise and in part remotely. In some circumstances a maximum
number of days of agile work is fixed, whose entity is largely dependent on company-specific
circumstances.119
   It is worth pointing out that such a “dynamic” character of agile work represents more a
theoretical than a factual difference with telework. In fact, as it has been observed in the
previous section, several company agreements concluded in the context of telework
regulations had already introduced some degree of alternation between remote and office-
based activity. However, a quantitative distinction remains between the two modalities, since
normally agile work arrangements allow for fewer days of remote work in the same reference
period.
   With regard to the characteristics of the workplace, the critical issue addressed by
collective bargaining concerns the selection of the location assigned for the execution of the
performance and the extent of the freedom of choice granted to the agile worker. The idea
that the loose definition provided by the law may entail the absolute liberty to work
“anywhere”, including fancy landscapes and leisure sites, is sharply contradicted by a series
of implicit end expressed limitations identified by collective agreements (let aside the
exceptional restrictions that characterized the “forced homework” of the pandemic period).
   These limitations come as a result of the responsibility placed on the agile worker to
cooperate in ensuring a safe and productive performance, in line with the qualitative
standards of the job. In fact, almost every agreement stipulates the workers’ obligation to
guarantee that the chosen venue fits with the requirements given for health and safety and
data security purposes. Furthermore, the location should be placed at such a distance as to
permit the agile worker to return promptly to the company’s premises in case an unexpected
occurrence (such as the permanent failure of the technical equipment) forbids to continue
the remote execution of the performance.
   In some cases, the texts predetermine the typology of admitted locations, which may
include private facilities at the disposal of the worker as well as co-working spaces and venues
controlled by the company, other than the “official” workplace. Several agreements expressly
rule out the possibility to execute the work activity from public and open space locations. 120
And although the employer has not the power to order a specific choice, in many cases the
agreements invest the worker with a duty of prior communication that amounts indirectly to
granting the former a limited but significant margin of interference.121
   Thus, the spatial “agility” theoretically attached to this form of work is substantially
reduced under the pressure of this web of parameters, and, again, the difference with the
operational features of the “classic” telework appear to be smaller in practice than the
wording of the law would authorize to presume.




119 For instance, the agreement signed at Italiana assicurazioni, insurance sector, on 20 February 2019 provides
for a maximum of 8 days per month; the Alba leasing agreement, finance sector, 2018, only 2 days per month)
120 E.g. Alba Leasing 2018.
121 E.g. Poste Italiane 23 January 2019.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                   247
  Iacopo Senatori                                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




8.4. Organization of the work performance.

    The principle that the agile worker should be free to self-organize his/her time patterns
is enshrined in the legislation, as it has been pointed out above. The lack of time constraints
is expressly mentioned as one of the possible (although not necessary) elements of an agile
work arrangement, except for the obligation to respect the maximum work hours prescribed
by law and collective agreements.
    The same element is also reaffirmed by collective bargaining.122 The texts present the
inherent flexibility of the instrument, linked to the (predicted) eclipse of the “old-fashioned”
means to measure the value of work (like time), as a pathway to the accomplishment of a
better work-life balance and all the other functions embodied in this form of work.123
    However, such a broad theoretical potential is counterbalanced in practical terms by the
restrictions that collective agreements normally lay down. Indeed, only a few texts provide
for the total synchronization of the remote performance (same hours and distribution as on-
premise workers).124 The majority of them allow for the free allocation of the activity within
a given reference time (normally the 8-20 span), in which the agile worker is basically
permitted to adopt an intermittent and discontinuous schedule. However, such flexibility is
usually mitigated by the obligation to remain available for calls and to stay on duty in certain
time slots.125 It is a matter of speculation to understand whether this outcome is the result of
the perduring technical need to guarantee some degree of time coordination in the
organizational processes, or whether it represents a way to exercise control on the remote
performance, lacking equivalent means (technological or cultural). Whatever the reason, the
empirical implementation of time patterns in agile work does not seem to differ extensively
from the most flexible experiences that have been observed in the case of telework.
    It is worth noting that some agreements design multiple models of agile work featuring
different work patterns, that range from the most rigid (totally synchronized) to the most
flexible solutions (detached and self-organized performances), depending on the
characteristic of the job, its functional linkage with the organization or the preference of the
worker.126
    A remarkable experience is the agreement recently concluded at Bayer (pharmaceutical
sector) on 21 February 2021, covering the employees of the Milan plant. It provides for an
overall reorganization of work patterns based on the lack of rigid schedules. The new scheme
applies equally to the performances executed on the premise and remotely. In this sense, the
agreement is worth mentioning because it shows that the relationship between new
technologies and organizational models entails opportunities and challenges that go beyond

122 Aimo M., Fenoglio A., Alla ricerca di un bilanciamento tra autonomia organizzativa del lavoratore e poteri datoriali nel
lavoro agile, in Labor, 2021, Vol. 1., 25-58; Cairoli S., Tempi e luoghi di lavoro nell’era del capitalismo cognitivo e dell’impresa
digitale, Jovene, Naples, 2020.
123 E.g. FCA (automotive) 12 March 2018. Some agreements include agile work in the broader context of

“company welfare” policies, e.g. Hera 4 June 2020; Poste Italiane 18 December 2020.
124 E.g. Alba Leasing 2018; Monte dei Paschi di Siena 29 May 2017; Findomestic 6 June 2017, finance and

banking sector; Hera 4 June 2020.
125 E.g. Ducati (automotive) 2018.
126 E.g. TIM 4 August 2020; Eataly 15 July 2020.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                                    248
  Iacopo Senatori                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous




remote work and can have an “horizontal” impact on the organization and its actors,
regardless of the place where the performance is carried out.
    The organizational arrangements laid down in the Bayer agreement are based on general
criteria such as trust, self-responsibility, a result-oriented culture and the obligation to respect
rest periods and maximum work hours as stated in the law. The agreement provides for a set
of guidelines to ensure the coordination of work teams and prevent excessive workloads,
stress and other side-effects that may have a negative impact on the health of the workers.
They include the commitment to reserve only certain time spans during the day for the
organization of meetings, to plan breaks between different meetings held at distance, to
alternate desk work with moments of physical activity. In accordance with the philosophy
that inspires it, the agreement excludes the recording of the start and end time of the work
performance. It is questionable, however, whether this provision complies with the ruling of
the Court of Justice of the European Union which recommended that the employer should
have in place a system for measuring the duration of the work performance, as a consequence
of his general obligation to ensure healthy and safe working conditions.127
    Another distinctive feature of agile work is the organization of the activity performed
remotely by stages, cycles and objectives. Although the law refers to it as a mere possibility,
this characteristic represents the most ambitious conceptualization of the instrument, the
one that embodies the real idea of “smart work” as outlined in the previous sections.
    Collective agreements often invoke this concept in their preambles. A smaller number
recall it in their normative clauses.128 Nonetheless, also in the latter cases it is difficult to
discern the provisions that hold a substantive value from those representing a mere rhetorical
expedient. In fact, on the one hand most agreements expressly claim that the agile work
mode does not alter the entitlement of the employer to direct and control the execution of
the work performance: a remark that may seem at odds with the idea of a less hierarchical
work organization. On the other hand, given that the shift of the organizational paradigms
in the company necessarily depends, in the opinion of its advocates, on the adoption of a
result-oriented approach to the work performance, one may expect to find in collective
agreements (at least in those aiming at such paradigm shift) a well-structured governance
scheme, addressing at least topics such as the definition of measurable targets, the monitoring
and evaluation of the activity and (last but not least) the guarantees enjoyed by the worker,
such as the possibility challenge and seek redress of the managerial decisions based on the
result-based performance assessment. It is worth noting in this regard that the
abovementioned European Framework Agreement on Digitalisation of June 2020
emphasized the importance of a sound coordination between the design of the organizational
objectives and the other elements of the organization that potentially affect workers’ rights.
In particular, it stated that the targets should be realistic, i.e. their accomplishment should
not entail the infringement of the maximum working hours.
    However, no such well-structured system is present in the collective agreements. Even in
the cases that address the issue in the most analytical way, the definition and the assessment

127CJEU, C-55/18, CC. OO., ECLI:EU:C:2019:402.
128E.g. TIM 4 August 2020; Coop Alleanza 16 December 2020; Fincantieri 17 July 2020; Credito Cooperativo
21 September 2020.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                             249
  Iacopo Senatori                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                       Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous




of the targets is simply entrusted to the unilateral initiative of the supervisor,129 or to an
individual agreement with the worker.130 The hazard entailed in such small-scale solutions is
that they could either be too weak to live up to the challenge (i.e. to promote a real shift
towards a result-oriented organization), or amount to a mere transfer of organizational
responsibilities from the employer to the workers. In this sense, the fact that most of the
surveyed agreements, as indicated above, introduced only a limited flexibility of working time
patterns, can be welcomed as a last-resort safeguard for workers against the abrupt and
unregulated shift towards a result-based performance assessment.


8.5. Employment conditions, rights and obligations of agile workers.

    While teleworkers under both the EFAT and the AI enjoy a full right to equal treatment
vis-à-vis their standard colleagues131, the law n° 81/17 uses a slightly different formulation,
which may be deemed to authorize a divarication of terms and conditions of employment to
the detriment of agile workers. In fact, Article 20 grants agile workers the right to economic
and normative conditions “not lower” than those “globally applied” to workers performing
the same job exclusively on the premises, pursuant to the provisions of collective agreements
signed at the national, local or company level by the comparatively most representative trade
unions of the sector.
    Nonetheless, this potential discrepancy is mitigated by collective agreements, which
generally specify that agile work does not involve any change in the position held by the
worker within the organization and in the economic and normative conditions enjoyed by
the same.132
    In spite of this, an issue has been raised, especially in the wake of the pandemic, with
regard to the entitlement of agile workers to specific rights such as meal tickets, the
compensation of overtime and short leaves. Collective agreements in the pre-pandemic
period usually excluded agile workers from those benefits and compensations, under the
assumption that they would be unjustified given the broader organizational autonomy
generally enjoyed by those workers. The fact that many post-pandemic agreements have
reversed this approach, and now recognize these prerogatives also to agile workers, at least
in the cases where the flexibility to organize one’s own schedule is materially limited, may
indicate the start of a new bargaining strategy on the trade union side, or the sign of an
increased awareness on the material needs of agile workers.133
    To the same direction of fairer economic arrangements for agile workers point the
provisions of the most recent agreements, that grant them a compensation for the

129 E.g. Fincantieri 17 July 2020, metalworking.
130 Coop Alleanza 3.0 16 December 2020, Trade and Services.
131 Article 4 of the EFAT, entitled “Employment conditions”, stipulates that “teleworkers benefit from the

same rights, guaranteed by applicable legislation and collective agreements, as comparable workers at the
employers premises”.
132 E.g. HBG Online gaming 3 February 2020, trade and services sector; similarly Ducati 2018,

automotive/metalworking; Hera 2018.
133 E.g. Fastweb 29 September 2020; TIM 4 August 2020.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                               250
  Iacopo Senatori                                                          Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                  Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                  Section: Miscellaneous




“infrastructural” costs incurred for the execution of the remote activity.134 This can be
interpreted as another hint of a progressive reconciliation between the regulations of agile
work and telework in terms of equal treatment.
    At the current state of technological development, the adoption of digital and remote
communication devices in the work organization pose challenges that were not predictable,
at least in their intensity, at the time the framework regulations on telework were enacted.
Disconnection and surveillance probably are, as it is well known, the issues that require most
urgently a new regulatory setting equipped to tackle such challenges.
    With regard to disconnection, the majority of collective agreements adopt a “soft”
normative approach, consistently with the recommendations given by the European
Framework Agreement on Digitalisation of June 2020. They often stipulate that the worker
is entitled to ignore calls and e-mails received outside the working hours.135 Nevertheless,
they usually refrain from introducing more specific enforcement mechanisms. Only in a few
cases the worker is specifically granted a right to log-off and deactivate the work devices.136
Interestingly, in one case disconnection is qualified as a right/duty, thus emphasising that the
worker, by properly organizing his/her working hours, fulfils his/her obligation to cooperate
with the employer for the realization of safe and healthy working conditions.137
    However, in the majority of cases the signatory parties expressly pursue an alternative
approach, claiming the refusal of any sort of automatisms (such as the mandatory shutoff of
devices and connections at the end of the reference period) and the willingness to promote
adequate cultural conditions and good organizational practices, such as the belated delivery
of e-mails and the limitation of time slots suitable for holding meetings, for instance avoiding
the organization of meetings during lunch breaks.138
    As far as control and surveillance are concerned, collective agreements that address the
issue basically reaffirm the employer’s obligation to respect the limits and conditions set out
by article 4 of the Workers’ Statute, which is referred to also in the agile work legislation
(article 21, law n° 81/17). Only a few of them expressly commit the employer not to install
remote surveillance devices.139
    Article 4 is indeed the central provision on employee remote surveillance in Italian labour
law, but several questions remain open as to its application to the forms of work enabled by
digital technologies, such as agile work. Under this provision, remote surveillance is not
prohibited per se, but it is surrounded by a range of substantive and procedural limitations.
The crucial point is that the law itself exempts the equipment directly functional to the
execution of the work performance from the limitations that generally operate in case of
installation of remote surveillance devices. Therefore, one may argue whether the extensive
and in-depth “data analytics” practices (e.g. the measurement of keystrokes), that are
becoming increasingly available, and that can be used as a means to indirectly ensure a

134 E.g. ING Bank 4 August 2020.
135 E.g. Fastweb 29 September 2020, telecommunication sector; Credito Cooperativo 21 September 2020,
banking sector.
136 E.g., Poste Italiane 18 December 2020.
137 Coop Alleanza 3.0, 16 December 2020.
138 E.g. TIM 4 August 2020.
139 HBG Online gaming 3 February 2020; Findomestic 6 June 2017; Eataly 15 July 2020.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                          251
  Iacopo Senatori                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
  Carla Spinelli                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




pervasive control on remote workers, fall under this exemption, and to what extent they can
be admitted and used for performance appraisal purposes. Lacking straightforward
indications from the law, as it has been observed above (section 6.2.3), collective bargaining
may represent a powerful source to introduce clarity and bring forward shared solutions,
capable of fulfilling organizational needs while containing managerial powers for the benefit
of workers’ rights. In this sense, the current state of collective bargaining speaks of a missed
opportunity.


8.6. Collective relations.

    A large number of agreements deal with the possibility for agile workers to exercise trade
union rights on the same terms as on-premise workers. The arrangements envisioned for this
purpose range from the activation of electronic boards to the participation in trade union
meetings via digital platforms.140
    Trade unions and/or works councils are often involved in the periodical monitoring of
the implementation of agile work in the company.141 Joint monitoring is indeed the most
frequent mechanism, whereas in other cases the same activity is carried out unilaterally by
the management with a simple follow-up information to the trade unions.142
    Except for this general form of involvement, other cases of intervention of workers’
representatives in more specific matters concerning the “daily” implementation of agile work
in the company are very rare. An example is the agreement signed at Credito cooperativo on
21 September 2020, which provides for the joint examination of the compatibility of the
technical characteristics of a job with the remote modality by the management and the trade
unions. In other cases, the bilateral bodies established in the company may be activated to
the extent that a specific issue related to the implementation of agile work cross-cuts their
filed of competence.143


9. Conclusions.

    As it was explained above, a simplified version of agile work has been allowed by the
Italian Government in order to facilitate its use during the pandemic. The pandemic
experience has in turn stimulated a still ongoing debate about whether and how the current
legal regulation should be amended, and what role industrial relations should play in a
renovated regulatory framework.
    With a view to the post-pandemic scenario, the observations collected in this essay
indicate two possible directions for further research and policymaking: the necessity of a


140 E.g. ENEL 9 June 2020; TIM 4 August 2020; Fastweb 2020.
141 E.g. Ericsson 7 February 2019; Poste italiane 18 December 2020; Fincantieri 17 July 2020.
142 E.g. Credito cooperativo 21 September 2020; Hera 2018.
143 Like equal opportunities, diversity, health and safety: ENEL 9 June 2020.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                  252
 Iacopo Senatori                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                Section: Miscellaneous




more intense and structured action on the collective bargaining front, and the opportunity
of a renewed rulemaking intervention at the EU level.
    The preliminary step in this direction requires to clarify the difference between the two
schemes of agile work and telework. The review of the contractual arrangements on agile
work that has been developed above shows that the social partners so far have shown a
cautious approach to the most innovative and potentially disruptive (or, to put it differently,
“smart”) elements of organizational flexibility that the law encourages to implement, i.e.
those related to working time and the result-oriented control of the work performance. On
the other hand, some issues that the law leaves largely unsettled, and that would instead
require a careful and precise regulation, like remote surveillance and the right to disconnect,
still lack a sufficient attention in collective agreements.
    As a result, the purported differences between agile work and its ancestor telework seem
to shrink in empirical terms. Therefore, the idea that the advent of agile work, as an
alternative form of remote work unleashed from the regulatory ties of the “institutionalized”
telework, may have been prompted by the “outdated” rigidities of the latter, remains
ultimately not demonstrated. Indeed, it was noted above that the general framework of
telework did not prevent the social partners, especially at the company level, from
experimenting flexible arrangements, particularly with regard to the choice of the workplace,
the time schedules and the possibility to alternate on-site and remote performances. Nor the
formal-definitory difference concerning the use of technological equipment for the execution
of the activity (necessary in telework, only potential in agile work) can be relevant, as digital
devices are constantly present in the contractual arrangements of agile work.
    One may argue that a more meaningful difference between the two schemes may rather
be found in the distribution of costs and responsibilities between employers and employees.
As it has been noted, the telework regulations affirm clearly the accountability of the
employer on each aspect of the employment relationship whose functional development
partially deviates from the standard as a consequence of its remote setting. In this way, the
rules restore the normal legal patterns, from workplace safety to equal treatment and the
coverage of the maintenance costs. The legal schemes of agile work are looser in this regard:
by referring the settlement of various issues to the individual agreement between the
employer and the worker, they expose the latter to bear a greater share of the risks.
Nonetheless, the most recent collective agreements indicate the first signs of a trend reversal.
    It cannot be overlooked, then, that the design and the implementation of a genuinely
“smart” work performance require a change of the managerial and organizational approach,
which, except in rare cases, does not seem to have been undertaken those who are in charge
of it.
    Against such background, the review of the Italian experience suggests that an update of
the established general framework on telework, far from representing a backward leap, may
still be a feasible strategy to adapt the regulatory toolkit to the new conditions stemming
from the advancement of digital technologies (e.g. disconnection, control and performance
assessment), while at the same time preventing the excessive fragmentation of the terms and
conditions applicable to remote work.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                        253
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




    A renewed action by social partners at the EU level, aimed at updating the “old” 2002
Framework Agreement, may thus offset the proliferation of “exceptional” experiences
prompted by the pandemic emergency at the level of the Member States, and help keeping
them within a unitary set of rules and principles.
    It should also be considered that the issues that have recently emerged in the agenda for
a new regulation of ICT-enhanced remote work, like the right to disconnect and the others
that have been repeatedly mentioned above, actually do not affect this form of flexible work
alone. They extend in fact to a broader area, that in the long run will likely encompass the
majority of employment relationships. This impression is echoed in the “inclusive” approach
taken by most recent initiatives undertaken by social partners and lawmakers at the EU level,
like the Framework Agreement on Digitalization and the Parliament’s Proposal for a
Directive on the right to disconnect.
    Therefore, it seems possible to envisage two ways forward: the new regulation of telework
could draw from, and align with, the developments that are already being prepared within
the EU institutions; or, on the contrary, the reform of telework could represent a laboratory
for innovative solutions that could then be extended to other areas of the new “digital labour
law”.




                                                Bibliography

Aidlass., Rivoluzione tecnologica e diritto del lavoro, Proceedings of the VIII National Congress.,
Milano, Giuffrè, 1986;
Aimo M., Fenoglio A., Alla ricerca di un bilanciamento tra autonomia organizzativa del lavoratore e
poteri datoriali nel lavoro agile, in Labor, 2021, Vol. 1, 25-58;
Albano R., Bertolini S., Curzi Y., Fabbri T., Parisi T., DigitAgile: l’ufficio nel dispositivo mobile.
Opportunità e rischi per lavoratori e aziende, Osservatorio MU.S.I.C., Working Paper Series 3,
2017;
Alessi C., Vallauri M. L., Il lavoro agile alla prova del Codiv-19, in Bonardi O., Carabelli U.,
D’Onghia M., Zoppoli L. (eds.), Covid-19 e diritti dei lavoratori, Ediesse, Roma, 2020, 131 – 15.
Allamprese A., Pascucci F., La tutela della salute e della sicurezza del lavoratore «agile», in Rivista
Giuridica del Lavoro, 2017, I, 315;
Alessi C., Barbera M., Guaglianone L. (eds.), Impresa, lavoro e non lavoro nell’economia digitale,
Cacucci, Bari, 2019;
Altimari M., Il diritto alla disconnessione: un “vecchio” diritto ineffettivo?, in Occhino A. (ed.), Il lavoro
e i suoi luoghi, Vita e Pensiero, Milano, 2018, 181 ff;
Andreoni A., Il lavoro agile nel collegamento negoziale, in Rivista Giuridica del lavoro, 2018, 105;
Battisti A. M., Commento all’ art. 36 – Parte prima. Le tipologie flessibili, in Amoroso G., Di Cerbo
V., Fiorillo L., Maresca A., Diritto del lavoro – Il lavoro pubblico, Giuffrè, Milano, vol. III, 2011,
567-570.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                 254
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                             Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




Bellavista A., Il potere di controllo sul lavoratore e la tutela della riservatezza, in Commentario breve allo
statuto del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.), Kluwer-Cedam,
Padova, 2018, 627 ff.;
Berti V., Il telelavoro nel contesto europeo tra nozione comunitaria e sistemi giuridici statali, in Diritto delle
Relazioni Industriali, 2008, 1233-34;
Biasi M., Brevi spunti sul lavoro da remoto post-emergenziale, tra legge (lavoro agile) e contrattazione (smart
working), in Lavoro e Previdenza Oggi, 2021, 3-4;
Bolego G., Commento all’art. 18, l. n. 81/2017, in De Luca Tamajo R., Mazzotta O. (eds.),
Commentario breve alle leggi sul lavoro, Kluwer-Cedam, Padova, 2018, 312;
Brollo M., Smart o Emergency Work? Il lavoro agile al tempo della pandemia, in Il Lavoro nella
Giurisprudenza, n. 6, 2020, 553-570;
Cairoli S., Tempi e luoghi di lavoro nell’era del capitalismo cognitivo e dell’impresa digitale, Jovene,
Naples, 2020;
Cairoli S., Galli G., Verzaro M., Rocchi L., Contrattazione collettiva. Periodo I semestre 2017, in
Galli G., Cairoli S., Osservatorio contrattazione collettiva, Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro., 2017, III, 88;
Calafà L., Le misure di conciliazione vita-lavoro: un quadro di sintesi, in Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M.
(eds.), Commentario breve alla riforma “Jobs Act”, Kluwer-Cedam, 2016, 693 ff.;
Caruso B., Tra lasciti e rovine della pandemia: più o meno smart working?, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto
del Lavoro, 2, 2020, I, 215 ff.;
Casillo R., La subordinazione “agile”, in Diritti lavori mercati, 2017, 6;
Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD), Smart Working. The Impact of
Work Organisation and Job Design, Research Insight, London, 2008;
Chiaro G. Prati G., Zocca M., Smart Working: dal lavoro flessibile al lavoro agile, in Sociologia del
lavoro, 2015, 72;
Cuttone M., Oltre il paradigma dell’unità di luogo, tempo e azione: la revanche dell’autonomia
individuale nella nuova fattispecie di lavoro agile, in Gruppo Giovani Giuslavoristi Sapienza (eds.),
Il lavoro agile nella disciplina legale, collettiva e individuale, Working Paper C.S.D.L.E. «Massimo
D’Antona» Collective Volumes, 6, 2017, 47-60;
Dagnino E., Working Anytime, Anywhere’ and Working Time Provisions. Insights from the Italian
Regulation of Smart Working and the Right to Disconnect, in E-Journal of International and Comparative
LABOUR STUDIES, Volume 9, No. 3, September-October 2020;
Dagnino E., Il diritto alla disconnessione nella legge n. 81/2017 e nell’esperienza comparata, in Diritto
delle relazioni industriali, 4, 2017, 1024 ff.;
Dagnino E., What does telework mean in the 21st century? Face to face with Jon Messenger, in Bollettino
Adapt        27      July       2016,       available       link:     http://englishbulletin.adapt.it/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/Messenger_Bulletin_Final.pdf;
Dagnino E., Menegotto M., Pelusi L.M., Tiraboschi M., Guida pratica al lavoro agile dopo la legge
n. 81/2017, Adapt University Press, Modena, 2017;
Depalo D., Giorgi F., Il lavoro da remoto in Italia durante la pandemia: i lavoratori del settore privato,
Banca d’Italia, Note Covid-19, 22 January 2021;
Di Meo R., Il diritto alla disconnessione nella prospettiva italiana e comparata, in Labour & Law Issues,
2017, Vol. 3, No. 2, 17;


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                    255
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                             Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




Donini A., Nuova flessibilità spazio-temporale e tecnologie: l’idea del lavoro agile, in Tullini P. (ed.),
Web e lavoro. Profili evolutivi e di tutela, Giappichelli, Torino, 2017, 78;
Esposito M., Smart Work e pubblico impiego: patti chiari, agilità lunga, in Martone M. (ed.), Il lavoro
da remoto. Per una riforma dello smart working oltre l’emergenza, La Tribuna, Roma, 2020, 147;
ETUC,          Framework           Agreement        on       Telework        –       Interpretation      Guide,
https://resourcecentre.etuc.org/linked_files/documents/Telework%20-
20ETUC%20interpretation%20guide%20EN.pdf;
Eu-Ohsa, Key trends and drivers of change in information and communication technologies and work
location, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2017,
https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/key-trends-and-drivers-
change-information-and-communication/view;
Eurofound, Living, Working and COVID-19, COVID-19 Series, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, 2020;
Eurofound, Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital divide?, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020;
Eurofound,          New           Forms        of      Employment,          Luxembourg,            2015,        ,
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2015/working-conditions-labour-
market/new-forms-of-employment;
Eurofound,          Telework         in      the     European         Union,       Luxembourg,           2010,
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/comparative-
information/telework-in-the-european-union;
Eurofound and the International Labour Office, Working anytime, anywhere: The effects on the
world of work, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, and the International
Labour Office, Geneva, 2017;
European Commission, A Strong Social Europe for Just Transitions, COM(2020) 14 final,
Brussles, 14.1.2020;
European Commission, The Increasing Use of Portable Computing and Communication Devices and its
Impact       on       the         Health       of      EU         Workers,        Luxembourg,            2010,
https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/guidelines/the-increasing-use-of-portable-
computing-and-communication-devices-and-its-impact-on-the-health-of-eu-workers;
European Commission, Report on the implementation of the European social partners' Framework
Agreement             on             Telework,            SEC(2008)               2178,              Bruxelles,
ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=463&langId=en.;
Faioli M., Telelavoro, in Enciclopedia Giuridica Treccani, Aggiornamento 2006;
Fana M., Milasi S., Napierala J., Fernandez Macias E., Gonzalez Vasquez I., Telework, work
organization and job quality during the COVID-19 crisis: a qualitative study, European Commission,
2020, JRC122591;
Flammia R., voce Telelavoro, in Enciclopedia Giuridica Treccani, Roma, 1993, Vol. XXX;
Gaeta L., voce Telelavoro, in Enciclopedia Giuridica Treccani – Diritto on line, 2015;
Gaeta L., Il regolamento sul telelavoro nelle pubbliche amministrazioni, in Lavoro nelle Pubbliche
Amministrazioni, 1999, 315;
Gaeta L., Il telelavoro: legge e contrattazione, in Giornale di Diritto del Lavoro e delle Relazioni Industriali,
1995, 547;

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                    256
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                             Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




Gaeta L., Lavoro a distanza e subordinazione, ESI, Napoli, 1993, 1-2;
Gaeta L., Prime osservazioni sulla qualificazione giuridica del «telelavoro», in Lavoro 80, 1986, 344;
Gaeta L., Pascucci P., Poti U., Il telelavoro nelle pubbliche amministrazioni, Il Sole 24 ore, Milano,
1999;
Gaeta L., Pascucci P., Una riflessione critica sul telelavoro, in Il Diritto del Mercato del Lavoro., 2001,
11;
Gaeta L., Pascucci P. (eds.), Telelavoro e diritto, Giappichelli, Torino, 1998;
Genin E., Proposal for a Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Time Porosity, in International
Journal of Comparative Labor Law and Industrial Relations, 2016, Vol. 32, Issue 3, 280 ff.;
Giugni G., È necessario subito un altro (tele)statuto, in Teléma, 2, 1995, 46;
Gottardi D., voce Telelavoro, in Digesto (discipline privatistiche - sezione commerciale), Agg., Utet,
2003, 911;
Gramano E., L’accordo sul lavoro agile: forma e contenuto, in Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.),
Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Kluwer-Cedam, 2018, 509 ff.;
Ichino P., I problemi giuridici del telelavoro, in Notiziario Giuridico del lavoro, vol. 75, 1995, 17;
Levi A., Il lavoro agile nel contesto del processo di destrutturazione della subordinazione, in Rivista
Giuridica del Lavoro, 2019, I, 25 ff.;
Mainardi S., Il potere disciplinare e di controllo sulla prestazione del lavoratore agile, in Fiorillo L., Perulli
A. (eds.), Il Jobs Act del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Giappichelli, Torino, 2018, 222;
Maio V., Il telelavoro, in Persiani M. (ed.), I nuovi contratti di lavoro, Giappichelli, Torino, 2010,
Utet, Turin, 779;
Malzani F., Il lavoro agile tra opportunità e nuovi rischi per il lavoratore, in Diritti Lavori Mercati, 2018,
28-29;
Mangan D., Gramano E., Kullmann M., An unprecedented social solidarity stress, in European
Labour Law Journal, 2020, 11(3), 247 – 275;
Manzella P., Nespoli F., Le parole del lavoro: un glossario internazionale/22 – agile o smart, in
Bollettino Adapt, 22 febbraio 2016, http://www.bollettinoadapt.it/le-parole-del-lavoro-ma-il-
lavoro-e-agile-o-smart-2/;
Martone M., Il lavoro agile nella l. 22 maggio 2017, n. 81: un inquadramento, in Zilio Grandi G.,
Biasi M. (eds.), Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Kluwer-Cedam,
2018, 465;
Martone M., Lo smart working nell’ordinamento italiano, in Diritti Lavori Mercati, 2018, 311.
Mazzotta O., Lo statuto del lavoratore autonomo ed il lavoro agile, in Il quotidiano giuridico, 1 febbraio
2016, link: http://www.quotidianogiuridico.it/documents/2016/02/01/lo-statuto-del-
lavoratore-autonomo-ed-il-lavoro-agile;
Monterossi L., Il lavoro agile nell’accordo Enel 4 aprile 2017, anche alla luce della sopravvenuta l.n.
81/2017, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro., 2017, III, 199 ff.;
Napoli M., Il telelavoro come lavoro subordinato, in Id. (ed.), Questioni di diritto del lavoro,
Giappichelli, Torino, 1996;
Nappi S., Riforma del lavoro autonomo, lavoro agile e altri esercizi stilistici parlamentari di una legislazione
incompiuta, in Il Diritto del Mercato del Lavoro, 2017, 214;
Natullo G., Il telelavoro, in Carinci F., Zoppoli L. (eds.), Il lavoro nelle pubbliche amministrazioni,
Utet, Torino, 2004, 611;

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                    257
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                           Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




Nogler L., Lavoro a domicilio, in Schlesinger P. (ed.), Commentario al Codice Civile, Giuffrè,
Milano, 2000;
Nogler L., Qualificazione e disciplina del rapporto di telelavoro, in Quaderni di Diritto del Lavoro e delle
Relazioni Industriali, 1998, vol. 21, 5;
Occhino A., Il lavoro agile nella contrattazione collettiva, in Lavoro nelle Pubbliche Amministrazioni,
2018, 81 ff.;
Pascucci P., La tutela della salute e della sicurezza sul lavoro, Aras Ediz., Fano, 2014, 60;
Penna M., I numeri del telelavoro nel pubblico impiego, Rapporto Tecnico ENEA, 2016,
http://openarchive.enea.it/handle/10840/7614.2016;
Peruzzi M., Sicurezza e agilità: quale tutela per lo smart worker?, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro,
1, 2017, 2 ff., http://ojs.uniurb.it/index.php/dsl/article/view/960/904;
Pinto V., La flessibilità funzionale e i poteri del datore di lavoro, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 2016,
I, 366;
Poletti D., Il c.d. diritto alla disconnessione nel contesto dei «diritti digitali», in Responsabilità Civile e
Previdenza, 2017, 1, 7 ff.;
Popma J., The Janus face of the ‘New Ways of Work’. Rise, risks and regulation of nomadic work, ETUI
Working Paper, 7, 2013, https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Working-Papers/The-Janus-
face-of-the-New-ways-of-Work-rise-risks-and-regulation-of-nomadic-work;
Poti U., Cordella C., Il telelavoro nella pubblica amministrazione: aspetti organizzativi e riflessi
sull’occupazione, in Il Diritto del Mercato del Lavoro, 1999, 318;
Proia G., L’accordo individuale e le modalità di esecuzione e di cessazione della prestazione di lavoro agile,
in Fiorillo L., Perulli A., Il Jobs Act del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Giappichelli, Torino,
2018, 183;
Ray J. E., Le droit à la déconnexion, droit à la vie privée au XXI siècle, in Droit social, 2002, 939 ff.;
Recchia G., I rinvii al contratto collettivo nel lavoro agile tra ambiguità normative e ragionevole
implementazione dell’istituto, in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro, 2018, 1501;
Riccio A., L’accordo di lavoro agile e il possibile ruolo della certificazione, in Gruppo Giovani
Giuslavoristi Sapienza (eds.), Il lavoro agile nella disciplina legale, collettiva e individuale, Working
Paper C.S.D.L.E. «Massimo D'Antona» Collective Volumes, 6, 2017, 61 ff.;
Roma G., Il telelavoro: aspetti giuridici e sindacali, in Grasso B. (ed.), Il telelavoro: lavoreremo tutti a
casa?, Edizioni dal Sud, Bari, 1986, 269 ff.;.
Russo M., Emergenza lavoro agile nella P.A., in giustiziacivile.com, 17 March 2020;
Salento A., Industria 4.0, imprese, lavoro. Problemi interpretativi e prospettive, in Rivista Giuridica del
Lavoro, 2017, I, 183;
Samek Lodovici M. et al., The impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society. Special
focus on surveillance and monitoring, as well as on mental health of workers, Study requested by the
European Parliament’s committee on Employment and Social Affairs, European Parliament,
Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, Luxembourg, April
2021;
Santoro Passarelli G., Lavoro eterorganizzato, coordinato, agile e il telelavoro: un puzzle non facile da
comporre in un’impresa in via di trasformazione, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2017, 789;
Saracini P., Lo Smart Working nel settore pubblico, in Carabelli U., Fassina L. (eds.), Smart Working:
tutele e condizioni di lavoro, Ediesse, Roma, 2021, 87;

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                  258
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




Sarti D., Torre T., Is Smart Working a Win-Win solution? First Evidence from the Field, in Addabbo
T., Ales E., Curzi Y., Senatori I. (eds.), Well-being at and through Work, Giappichelli, Torino,
2016, 237-240;
Sartori A., Il lavoro agile nella pubblica amministrazione, in Zilio Grandi G., Biasi M. (eds.),
Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro autonomo e del lavoro agile, Kluwer-Cedam, Padova, 2018,
486;
Sena E., Lavoro agile e diritto alla disconnessione: l’incidenza delle nuove tecnologie sulle modalità di
esecuzione della prestazione di lavoro, in Il Diritto del Mercato del Lavoro, 2018, 245;
Senatori I., Il lavoro agile in cerca di identità. Cronaca legislativa di un quadriennio travagliato (2017-
2020), in Basenghi F., Di Stefano L., Russo A., Senatori I. (eds.), Le politiche del lavoro della
XVIII Legislatura: dal Decreto Dignità alla gestione dell’emergenza Covid-19, Giappichelli, Turin,
2020, 57 – 90.
Senatori I., The European Framework Agreement on Digitalisation: a Whiter Shade of Pale? , Italian
Labour Law E-Journal, 13(2), 2020, 159–175.
Senatori I., The Irresistible Rise of Occupational Welfare in Italy: From Social Innovation to Regulatory
Challenges, in The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 2017,
Vol. 33, No. 4, 441 – 462.;
Spinelli Carla, Lavoro agile emergenziale e diritto al buono pasto, in Rivista giuridica del Lavoro
giurisprudenza news, 2021, n. 2;
Spinelli Carla, La flessibilità degli orari per la conciliazione dei tempi di vita e lavoro: l’organizzazione
municipale, in Bavaro V., Spinelli C., Tecnologie digitali e lavoro agile, Cacucci, Bari,
2018.Carabelli U., Sforza G., Voza R. (eds.), Tempo Comune. Conciliazione di vita e lavoro e
armonizzazione dei tempi della città, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2009, 107;
Spinelli Carmen, Lo smart working al tempo del coronavirus, in Labor, 2021, Vol.1., 115-133;
Tarantini E., La conciliazione tempi di vita – tempi di lavoro nella legge di stabilità 2016, in Ghera E.,
Garofalo D. (eds.), Semplificazioni - sanzioni - ispezioni nel Jobs Act 2, Cacucci, Bari, 2016, 189 ff.
Ter Haar B., Menegatti E., Senatori I., Sychenko E. (eds.), Covid-19 and labour law. A global
review, Italian Labour Law e-Journal, 2020 Special Issue, 13(1S);
Tiraboschi M., Il lavoro agile tra legge e contrattazione collettiva: la tortuosa via italiana verso la
modernizzazione del diritto del lavoro, in Diritto delle Relazioni industriali, 4, 2017, 3;
Tiraboschi M., Dagnino E., Tomassetti P., Tourres C., Il “lavoro agile” nella contrattazione
collettiva oggi, Working Paper Adapt, 2, 2016:
https://moodle.adaptland.it/pluginfile.php/26070/mod_resource/content/0/lavoro_agile
_contrattazione_wp_3.2.pdf;
Toffoletto F., Nuove tecnologie informatiche e tutela del lavoratore, Giuffrè, Milano, 2006;
Tufo M., Il lavoro agile emergenziale: un mosaico difficile da ricomporre tra poteri datoriali e diritti dei
lavoratori, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro, 2021, Vol. 1, 41-60;
Valenduc G., Vendramin P., Work in the digital economy: sorting the old from the new, Etui Working
Paper 3, 2016;
Veneziani B., Nuove tecnologie e contratto di lavoro: profili di diritto comparato, in Giornale di Diritto
del Lavoro e delle Relazioni Industriali, 1987, 1;
Viscomi A., Telelavoro e pubbliche amministrazioni (d.p.r. 8 marzo 1999, n. 70), in Studium iuris,
1999, 1065;

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                 259
 Iacopo Senatori                                                                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
 Carla Spinelli                                                                             Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




Zoppoli L., Dopo la digi-demia quale smart working per le pubbliche amministrazioni?, WP C.S.D.L.E.
“Massimo D’Antona” n. 421/2020;
Zucaro R., Il diritto alla disconnessione tra interesse collettivo e individuale. Possibili profili di tutela, in
Labour & Law Issues, vol. 5, no. 2, 214-233.




Copyright © 2021 Iacopo Senatori, Carla Spinelli. This article is released under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13376                                                                    260
