10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946
The search for increasingly sophisticated prescriptive regulatory solutions regarding employer liability in the OHS system has led to several legislative interventions, as well as reflections and debates in doctrine and jurisprudence. However, against the background of new and emerging OHS risk factors such as COVID-19, less attention has been given to employer liability and company resilience. While the principle of “maximum technologically possible safety” is not new, the question of how it is to remain unvaried in the face of new multifactorial, ubiquitous, and transversal risks, without excessively penalising companies, has been controversial for some time. Given new risks, such as COVID-19, this paper will analyse employer liability in OHS as it relates to interpretative problems and the definition of its containment perimeter.
application/pdf
1561-8048
12946
1
en
Maria Giovannone
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Italian OHS debate
Safety at work, new risks, and employer liability: prospects for post-Covid-19 regulation in Italy
Text.Serial.Journal
https://illej.unibo.it/
14
Miscellaneous
2021-07-29
2021-05-25
2021-07-29
2021-07-29
123-146
ILLeJ
Maria Giovannone
2021/07/29
10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946
123
Roma Tre University
1561-8048
1
Italian OHS debate
en
146
Safety at work, new risks, and employer liability: prospects for post-Covid-19 regulation in Italy
https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/12946/12947
14
Safety at work, new risks and employer liability: prospects for post-                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Covid-19 regulation in Italy                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
Maria Giovannone                                                                                       ISSN 1561-8048
maria.giovannone@uniroma3.it                                            https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946




          Safety at work, new risks and employer liability:
          prospects for post-Covid-19 regulation in Italy
                                              Maria Giovannone 



  1. Introduction. 2. Employer responsibility in the domain of prevention. 3. Oversight duty
  over other recipients’ obligation of prevention and concurrence of guilt in criminal
  proceedings. 4. The safety obligation in the face of risk-contagion from Covid-19. 4.1. Art.
  29 bis of Law Decree 23/2020. 5. A public-private partnership regulatory model? 5.1.
  Organisation and management models - 5.2. The qualification system for companies. 6. Anti-
  contagion protocols and the importance of “participated” safety. 6. Conclusions.

                                                            Abstract

      The search for increasingly sophisticated prescriptive regulatory solutions regarding employer
      liability in the OHS system has led to several legislative interventions, as well as reflections and
      debates in doctrine and jurisprudence. However, against the background of new and emerging
      OHS risk factors such as COVID-19, less attention has been given to employer liability and
      company resilience. While the principle of “maximum technologically possible safety” is not
      new, the question of how it is to remain unvaried in the face of new multifactorial, ubiquitous,
      and transversal risks, without excessively penalising companies, has been controversial for some
      time. Given new risks, such as COVID-19, this paper will analyse employer liability in OHS as
      it relates to interpretative problems and the definition of its containment perimeter.


      Keywords: OHS duty; Employer liability; New and emerging risk factors; COVID-19; Italian
      OHS debate.



  1. Introduction.

     In the context of the recent Covid-19 emergency, this contribution aims to provide an
  update on the current debate within the Italian legal system1 on the civil and criminal liabilities
  of employers in the field of health and safety at work. It should be pointed out that the
  subject is very broad and complex and has multiple repercussions in criminal and labour

  
    Researcher in Labour Law, Adjunct Professor in Labour Market Law, Global Economy and Labour Rights
  and European Social Law at Roma Tre University. This article has been submitted to a double-blind peer review
  process.
  1 On the Italian OSH system in a comparative key see. Ales E., Occupational Health and Safety: a European and

  Comparative Legal Perspective, in WP C.D.S.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”, 12, 2015 and Ales E., Occupational Health
  and Safety: A Comparative Perspective, in Ales E. (eds), Health and safety at work, Wolters Kluwer International,
  Alphen aan den Rijn, 2013, 428-437.
    Maria Giovannone                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




doctrine and jurisprudence. These aspects, therefore, will be addressed without purporting
to be exhaustive, but with the aim of providing the main and most current issues on the
subject for the next evolution of the Italian legal system.
    The paper will first analyse the content of the main regulatory provisions on the
employer’s guarantee position: from 2087 of the Civil Code of 1942, a fundamental rule of
the Italian prevention system and still in force, to the most recent special laws adopted in
implementation of European directives2, including in particular the Consolidated Text of
Health and Safety at Work (Legislative Decree no. 81 of 9 April 2008).
    While art. 2087 of the Italian Civil Code was the first to establish a preventive and general
obligation for the employer to protect the health and safety of workers, the Consolidated Act
constitutes its direct specification. Indeed, for health and safety protection at work, Article
2087 of the Civil Code has essentially required the employer to adopt measures not only
strictly imposed by law regarding the specific type of work carried out but also all other
necessary measures based on the particularity of the work activity, experience, and
technological evolution. For its part, the Consolidated Act on Health and Safety at Work,
directly inspired by the principles laid down by European directives, has grouped,
reorganised, coordinated, modified, and repealed all the previous legislation on the subject
accumulated over time in order to include most of the preventive provisions currently
applicable to all sectors and areas of activity.
    Given the evolution of the legislation, the essay will analyse the complex doctrinal and
jurisprudential debate that has developed around the employer’s safety obligation by starting
from the above-mentioned rules. It will highlight how, even when the obligation to fulfil
preventive measures had been satisfied, the employer or employer’s delegate, may be
responsible for the workers on a civil and criminal level. Therefore, the precautionary
obligation is comprehensive and, considering the courts’ interpretation, makes it difficult for
the employer to be completely exempt from liability. In continuing this analysis, the essay
evaluates the Covid-19 emergency repercussions on employers’ obligations, especially in light
of the “Covid risk” characteristics: an omnipresent risk that is neither easily foreseeable nor
limited to working environments. Thus, some of the rules adopted in the period of the health
emergency - Art. 42 of Law Decree no. 18 of 17 March 2020, converted into law with
amendments by Law no. 27 of 24 April 20203 and art. 29-bis of Law decree no. 23 of 8 April
2020, converted into law 23/2020 law with amendments by Law no. 40 of 5 June 2020 - may
further expand or limit the scope of employer liability, both civil and criminal, depending on
the interpretative approach adopted.
    In this context, the paper positively evaluates the emergency provisions just mentioned.
In particular, the first is acknowledged to deserve the merit extending protection indemnity
in the field of accidents and occupational diseases of INAIL (agency for the insurance of
occupational injuries) to the workers who are most directly affected in carrying out their
work by the contagion. On the other hand, the second has the merit of anchoring the exact

2 Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
of workers at work and its following directives.
3 On this topic see Gaglione C., Purificato I., Rymkevich O. P., COVID-19 and Labour Law: Italy (update 16 June

2020), in Italian Labour law e-Journal, 13, 1S, 2020.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                  124
    Maria Giovannone                                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                               Section: Miscellaneous




fulfilment of the employer’s preventive obligation to the implementation of the shared
Protocol of measures aimed at contrasting and containing the SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19
virus in the workplace, which the Italian Government signed with the social partners in
March 2020 and its respective updates and additions. In fact, a legal norm reference to the
provisions of the Protocols signed by the social partners not only extends the agreement
rules of the Protocols themselves in a generalised way for all employers but allows to provide
further concreteness and specificity to the employer’s obligation to provide preventive
measures in addressing new, unpredictable, and ubiquitous risks such as Covid. Not
surprisingly, the ILO, which compared the strategies adopted by countries to counter the
spread of the infection in the workplace, evaluated this rule as good practice in the
international scenario.4
   On closer inspection, this regulation mechanism just described is not only able to render
the implementation of the principle of “participatory security”5 introduced by European
directives6 and international conventions7 (and already developed by the rules of the
Consolidated Security Act) more effective in the fight against Covid- 19 in the workplace but
also lends itself to more effective prevention of other types of risk, especially new and
emerging ones linked to new forms of work organisation. The use of this regulatory
technique could, in fact, facilitate the pinpointing of the employers’ safety obligation (and
responsibilities) while simultaneously ensuring greater effectiveness of the prevention
measures adopted by them, also thanks to the involvement of all safety actors, first of all,
workers and their representatives.


2. Employer’s responsibility in the domain of prevention.

    The Italian legislator’s search for increasingly detailed regulatory solutions aimed at
properly balancing constitutional values directly affected by the question of Employer
responsibility for workers’ health and safety has been ongoing for quite some time. Following
the evolution of the legislation and more than twelve years after the entry into force of the
Testo Unico di Salute e Sicurezza (Consolidated Health and Safety Act, Legislative Decree
no. 81/2008), it seems useful to reflect on the gaps left by the legislation, the still existing
margins of simplification and, above all, the interpretative solutions which doctrine and
jurisprudence have offered to fill these spaces.
    With the introduction of Article 42 of Law Decree no. 18 of 17 March 2020, converted
into law with amendments by Law no. 27 of 24 April 2020, the need for this analysis seems

4 The Italian example was explored in the ILO report In the face of a pandemic: Ensuring Safety and Health at Work,
dedicated to the World Day for Safety and Health at Work on 20 April 2020. More recently, ILO, The response
of social partners to the COVID-19 crisis in Italy, Background note: Labour relations and COVID-19, October 2020.
5 See Dorssemont F., The Ancillary function of workers’ involvement in safeguarding the fundamental workers’ right to

safe and healthy working conditions at the workplace, in L. Guaglianone, F. Malzani (eds.), Come cambia l’ambiente
di lavoro: regole, rischi, tecnologie, Giuffrè, Milano, 2007, 423.
6 Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements

in the safety and health of workers at work and its following directives.
7 ILO Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention no. 187 and ILO Occupational Safety

and Health Convention no. 155.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                       125
    Maria Giovannone                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




to be even more topical following the debate that developed in the spheres of labour and
criminal law. The provision extending the scope of insurance protection provided by INAIL
to workers affected by Coronavirus infection8 has rekindled the doctrinal debate on employer
civil and criminal liability.9
    Recent regulatory scenario has prompted experts to reflect on the boundaries of employer
liability, taking into account the case law extension of the application of Article 2087 of the
Civil Code10, and the fact that compliance with preventive regulations is entrusted, in terms
of punishment, to forms of civil and criminal offence with different penalties.11
    Within this system, Article 2087 of the Civil Code has become, first and foremost, the
criterion for determining the employer’s contractual12 and non-contractual13 civil liability in
the event of an accident at work or occupationally related adverse medical conditions.14
Failure to observe Article 2087 has also been considered the standard on which to base an
employer’s criminal liability for manslaughter and unintentional bodily harm.15
    On a civil law level, moreover, based on this provision, the employer may be called upon
to compensate the worker for the so-called differential damage16, which is also due to a
person who, although already receiving an INAIL pension, proves to have suffered further
damage compared to that recognised and compensated by the social safety body. Likewise,
by bringing employer liability within the scope of non-contractual liability under Article 2043
of the Civil Code, case law has influenced the extension of the expected level of safety. This
is because, in the case of accidents or occupationally related adverse medical conditions, the
non-contractual liability system - unlike the contractual liability system - is aimed at
compensating not only foreseeable harm but also unforeseeable harm.


8 Sandulli P., Pandolfo A., Faioli M., Coronavirus, regresso e danno differenziale. Contributo al dibattito, in WP CSDLE
“Massimo D’Antona”.IT, 420, 2020, further elaborated on in Coronavirus e responsabilità datoriale da infortunio sul
lavoro, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 631-641; De Matteis A., Le infezioni da coronavirus come
infortunio sul lavoro: le specialità della tutela italiana, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 643-658; De
Matteis A., La centralità del lavoratore nel sistema di tutela INAIL. A proposito del manuale di G. Corsalini, in Rivista del
Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2021, 143-149.
9 On this topic, Giubboni S., I presupposti della responsabilità civile del datore per infortunio sul lavoro nella nomofilachia

della Suprema Corte (con una chiosa sul risarcimento del danno da Covid-19) (Corte di cassazione, sezione lavoro, 19 giugno
2020, n. 12041), in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 669-689.
10 Cass. 12 febbraio 1997 n. 3439; Cass. 30 novembre 2007, n. 44791; Cass. 7 giugno 2013, n. 14468; Cass. 5

gennaio 2016, n. 34; Cass. 21 aprile 2017, n. 10145. Cfr. Mesiti D., L’ambito di applicazione della tutela prevenzionistica
ed antinfortunistica e, segnatamente, dell’art. 2087 c.c., in Il lavoro nella giurisprudenza, 4, 2017, 322.
11 Castronuovo D., Le fonti della disciplina penale della sicurezza del lavoro: un sistema a più livelli, in Castronuovo D.,

Curi F., (eds.), Sicurezza sul lavoro. Profili penali, Giappichelli, Torino, 2019.
12 Cass. 3 aprile 1999, n. 3234; Cass. 10 gennaio 2011, n. 306; Cass. 29 gennaio 2013, n. 2038; Cass. 21 novembre

2017, n. 27666.
13 Cass. 21 dicembre 1998, n. 12763; Cass. 20 giugno 2003, n. 3612; Cass. 6 luglio 2002, n. 9856; Cass. 21

febbraio 2012, n. 2506; Cass. 20 giugno 2013, n. 3612.
14 Gargani A., Le posizioni di garanzia, in Giurisprudenza Italiana, 1, 2016, 214-223; Riverso R., Il risarcimento del

danno per infortunio e malattia professionali tra riforme tentate e l’incerto incedere della giurisprudenza, in Rivista del Diritto
della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2020, 27-61; Corsalini G., De Matteis A., Il concorso tra risarcimento e indennizzo dinanzi alle
giurisdizioni superiori e riflessi sull'azione di rivalsa dall'INAIL, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2019, 151-
182.
15 Giubboni S., nt. (9).
16 Giubboni S., Il risarcimento del danno differenziale da infortunio sul lavoro dopo la legge di bilancio 2019, in Rivista del

Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2019,183-200.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                   126
     Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




    It is worth pointing out that non-contractual actions impose a greater burden of proof on
the employee since he/she has to prove unjust damage attributable to the fault or intent of
the employer. However, in the case of contractual liability, the burden of proof is shared. On
the one hand, the employee needs to prove the damage and causal link between that damage
and the employer’s conduct, and the employer, on the other, to have correctly fulfilled his
safety obligation. However, it is not always easy to prove its correct compliance if the
violation is imputed to the general obligation imposed by Article 2087 of the Civil Code.
    Therefore, while Article 2087 of the Civil Code has allowed a dynamic and extensive
interpretation of the safety obligation, expanding the range of risks to be assessed and
prevented well beyond the provisions of the law17, it is equally true that the principle of
“maximum safety technologically possible” has sometimes generated doubts about the
boundaries of the content of the safety obligation. The attempts of the Constitutional
Court18, and especially the Court of Justice of the EU19, to delimit this principle’s content to
the minimum of formally prescribed requirements is proof of this.
    Consequently, interpretation has often needed to find a balance between the most
scientifically advanced criteria and the technical and economic feasibility of preventive
solutions available on the market.20
    This need could also arise with expanding the content of the risk assessment by art. 2,
lett. q) and 28 TUS21 and, above all, given the different types of risk - endogenous and
exogenous, typical and atypical, traditional or new - characteristic of today’s work
organisation.




17  Among the best-known examples is the recognition of employers’ fault for damage caused by passive
smoking. (cfr. C. Cost. 20 dicembre 1996, n. 399; interpelli n. 6, 15 novembre 2012 and n. 15, 24 ottobre 2013)
and work-related mobbing (cfr. Cass. 7 maggio 2014, n. 18832; Cass. 23 aprile 2014, n. 17689).
18 C. Cost. 25 luglio 1996, n. 312. At the European level, CJEU - Case C-49/00 Commission v. Italy [2001]

ECLI:EU:C:2001:611.
19 In primis, CJEU - Case n. C-49/00 Commission v. Italy, ibid, and CJEU - Case C-127/05 Commission of the

European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2007]
ECLI:EU:C:2007:338.
20 Sul tema, Guariniello R., Il principio di massima sicurezza tecnologicamente fattibile, in Igiene e Sicurezza del Lavoro,

1997, 339; Lai M., Sicurezza del lavoro e aggiornamento tecnologico, in Diritto e Pratica del Lavoro, 5, 2008, 338; Montuschi
L., L’incerto cammino della sicurezza del lavoro fra esigenze di tutela, onerosità e disordine normativo, in Rivista Giuridica del
Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale, 4, 2001, 508; Natullo G., Principi generali della prevenzione e “confini” dell’obbligo della
sicurezza, in Rusciano M., Natullo G. (eds.), Ambiente e sicurezza del lavoro, Utet, 2007, 79; Natullo G., La massima
sicurezza tecnologica, in Diritto e Pratica del Lavoro, 12, 1997, 815; Angelini L., La sicurezza del lavoro nell’ordinamento
europeo, in I Working Paper di Olympus, 29, 2013; Soprani P., L’obbligo del ricorso alla migliore tecnologia disponibile, in
Ambiente & Sicurezza, 12, 2005, 85.
21 On the extension of the boundaries of this obligation by the 2008-2009 reform, Natullo G., Soggetti e obblighi

di prevenzione nel nuovo Codice della sicurezza sui luoghi di lavoro: tra continuità e innovazioni, in WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo
D’Antona”, 91, 2009, 17.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                  127
     Maria Giovannone                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




3. Oversight duty over other recipients’ obligation of prevention and concurrence of
guilt in criminal proceedings.

    In this context, the legal institution of functions delegation (governed by Article 16 of
Legislative Decree no. 81/2008), according to case law22, does not always appear to be
functional to a precise definition of the employer’s prevention obligation. Indeed, if
functions delegation is useful for the optimal organisation of company safety and refrains
from any attempt to exonerate the employer from responsibility, it is equally clear that the
principle of effectiveness (provided for by art. 299 of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008) should
make it possible to identify the recipients of prevention obligations in the company
organisation chart. With the gradual introduction of sector regulation leading to the
proliferation of corporate figures responsible for the safety duty, the legislator intended to
anchor the preventive discipline to the constitutional principle “penal liability is personal”
(Art. 27, co. 1 Cost.). 23
    In any event, the absence of a penalty for managers and persons in charge failing to
supervise leaves the question of the need to better define the contours of the employer’s
liability as delegating party unanswered - above all, given the tendency to automatically
“equate failure to supervise with failure to prevent the contravention”. 24 Besides, precisely

22  Cfr. Cass. 1° luglio 1992, n. 9874; Cass. 19 marzo 2012, n. 10704; Cass. 29 gennaio 2014 n. 4084; Cass. 1°
aprile 2014 n. 15028; Cass. 20 giugno 2013 n. 26965; Cass. 27 febbraio 2013 n. 9505; Cass. 23 settembre 2016,
n. 39499; Cass. 10 aprile 2017, n. 18090; Cass. 31 agosto 2018, n. 39324; Cass. 24 settembre 2018 n. 40949;
Cass. 18 marzo 2019, n. 11714; Cass. 21 maggio 2019, n. 22079; Cass. 22 luglio 2019 n. 32487; Cass. 05 giugno
2020 n. 17174; Cass. 27 gennaio 2020 n. 3184; Cass. 09 marzo 2021, n. 9343; Cass. 19 febbraio 2021, n. 6486.
23 Fantini L., Giuliani A., Salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro. Le norme, l’interpretazione e la prassi, Giuffrè, Milano,

2015, 97. On the delegation of functions, including, also Soprani P., Inderogabilità non dismettibilità delle posizioni di
garanzia prevenzionistiche, in Igiene e Sicurezza del Lavoro, 17, 2, 2013, 61-64; Basenghi F., La ripartizione intersoggettiva
degli obblighi prevenzionistici, in Galantino L. (eds.), La sicurezza del lavoro. Commentario ai decreti legislativi 19 settembre
1994 e 19 marzo 1996, n. 242, Giuffrè, Milano, 1996, 53; Romei R., Il campo di applicazione del d. lgs. n. 626 del 1994
e i soggetti (artt. 1, 2 e 3), in Montuschi L. (eds.), Ambiente, salute, sicurezza: per una gestione integrata dei rischi di lavoro,
Giappichelli, Torino, 1997, 77; Padovani T., La delega di funzioni tra vecchio e nuovo sistema di prevenzione
antinfortunistica, in Cassazione penale, 2011, 1581; D’Alessandro F., La delega di funzioni nell'ambito della tutela della
salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, alla luce del decreto correttivo n. 106/2009, in Riv. it. dir. e proc. pen., 3, 2010,
1125; Paonessa C., Debito di sicurezza e delega di funzioni nelle società di capitali, in Campanella P., Pascucci P. (eds.),
La sicurezza sul lavoro nella galassia delle società di capitali, in I Working Papers di Olympus, 44, 2015, 124, which points
out that, because of its own practical usefulness, the delegation of functions is widely applied not only with
regard to the labour context, but also in other areas, such as food safety and the environment; in tal senso, Cass.
05 giugno 2020 n. 17174; Natullo G., Ambiente di lavoro e tutela della salute, Giappichelli, Torino, 2020, 41, which
emphasizes that the institution of the delegation of functions allows to change the structure of the distribution
of obligations and guarantee positions in the company, determining a new structure, in which some of those
obligations, with the related guarantee positions, is transferred by its holder, who therefore frees himself (so-
called effectiveness) to another entity that, under certain conditions and within certain limits, becomes and
remains solely responsible. A similar opinion is expressed by De Vita A., La delega di funzioni, in Natullo G. (eds.)
Salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, Utet, 2015, 343; Russo A., Delega di funzioni e obblighi del datore di lavoro non delegabili, in
Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n.
106/2009), Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, 344; Bacchini F., Sicurezza (del lavoro) e organizzazione (aziendale), in I Working
Papers di Olympus, 28, 2013, p. 16, for which the obligation of supervision of the delegate must be balanced with
the prohibition of interference, recalling in this regard the judgment of the Court of Cassation of 23 June 2004
n. 28126, in which it was pointed out that the obligation to supervise “is limited to the scope of the powers conferred on
the delegate and meets an impassable limit in the principle of , modulated according to the type and size of the enterprise”.
24 Fantini L., Giuliani A., ibid, 133-134.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                    128
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




because the adoption of corporate decisions on prevention is ultimately the employer’s
responsibility, his/her liability may also be confirmed in cases where the harmful event is
attributed to the conduct of the person in charge of the Prevention and Protection Service.25
In fact, this figure is now recognised by case law as criminally liable for the failure to use, or
ineffectively use, his/her competences26, as in the case of manufacturers and sellers.27
    Similarly, although there is no lack of judgments to the contrary28, prevailing case law29
does not, for the purposes of identifying the boundaries of employer responsibility,
emphasise workers’ obligations30 (enshrined in Article 20 of Legislative Decree No 81/2008)
and makes their contribution to the occurrence of the event of damage31 less operational.32
    Moreover, in the context of criminal proceedings, case law does not always differentiate
between the ‘operational’ liability - especially of delegated persons or workers - and the
‘organisational’ liability of the employer.
    In particular, it is noted that the principles of self-responsibility and reliance are not always
relevant to exempt the employer from liability at the criminal level33. In this way, the charge
could ‘return back’ to the employer, almost to the point of overlapping the safety risk with
the business risk.34
    In support of the existence of the link between the employer’s conduct and the harmful
event, jurisprudence seems to not only use those events directly related to the conduct but
also those which are only potentially attributed to it. Especially in those cases where the
employer is charged with violating less specific provisions, the so-called “organisational
defects” would impede the interruption of the causal link, resulting in a conviction for joint
liability (Article 113 of the Criminal Code).35
    Consequently, according to some authors, the adoption of ’a “cumulative” rather than an
“alternative” model of responsibility’ would make implementing some prevention

25 Mollichella C., Compiti del servizio di prevenzione e protezione, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), Il testo unico della
salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, 634; Lazzari C.,
L’organizzazione del sistema aziendale di prevenzione: soggetti ed obblighi tecnici, in I Working Paper di Olympus, 30, 2014;
Pisani N., Posizioni di garanzia e colpa di organizzazione nel diritto penale del lavoro, in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Penale
dell’Economia, 1-2, 2009, 155; Cass. 25 marzo 2010, n. 11582.
26 Tra tutte, Cass. 21 dicembre 2010, n. 2814; Cass. 15 luglio 2010, n. 32195.
27 Cass. 25 novembre 2010; Cass. 11 dicembre 2007 n. 6280.
28 Cass. 29 novembre 1994, n. 10066. More recently, Cass. 16 marzo 2016, n. 5233.
29 Cass. 14 luglio 2015, n. 30349; Cass. 3 marzo 1995, n. 6486.
30 Paonessa C., «La tutela penale della sicurezza sul lavoro. «Luci ed ombre del diritto vivente» 8/9 maggio 2014, Siena, in

Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 3, 2017, 1657.
31 Cfr. Cass. 19 agosto 1996, n. 7636; Cass. 22 novembre 20012, n. 20597; Cass. 9 ottobre 2012, n. 1036; Cass.

05 febbraio 2014, n. 2626; Cass. 26 novembre 2015, n. 46979; Cass. 4 febbraio 2016, n. 2209 in Argomenti di
Diritto del Lavoro, 2016, 3, with note by Paolini C, La culpa in vigilando del datore di lavoro e la sua natura di responsabilità
contrattuale, 659-664.
32 Pellegrini T., L’onere della prova nella responsabilità ex art. 2087 c.c. e gli obblighi di protezione, in Giurisprudenza italiana,

6, 2018, 1352-1357.
33 Furin N., De Negri E., La sicurezza del lavoro: soggetti, responsabilità e sanzioni dopo il correttivo del testo unico, CELT,

Milano, 2009, 103.
34 Piva D., La responsabilità del “vertice” per organizzazione difettosa nel diritto penale del lavoro, Jovene editore, Napoli,

2011.
35 On the issue of circumvention of competition requirements see Sorbello P., Delega di funzioni e sicurezza sul

lavoro: brevi considerazioni tra prescritta formalità e imprescindibile effettività, in Indice Penale, 13, 2, 2010, 647; Rampioni
R., Dalla parte degli «ingenui». Considerazioni in tema di tipicità, offesa e cd. «giurisprudenza creativa», Cedam, Milano,
2007, 65.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                      129
     Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




regulations more difficult. In providing for employer obligation and managerial supervision
over supervisors, workers, manufacturers, suppliers, installers, and competent doctors (cf.
art. 18, para. 3-bis of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008), the norms have specified the “exclusive
responsibility” of the aforementioned persons if the failure to implement their obligations
“is attributable solely to them and there is no evidence of a lack of supervision by the
employer and the managers”.


4. The safety obligation in the face of risk-contagion from Covid-19.

   The Covid-19 emergency36 has also had a significant impact on the characteristics of
employer liability in the field of prevention due to those mentioned above equating of Covid-
19 infection contracted at work with work related accidents37. That this equivalence could
extend the scope of liability has caused some concern, both in civil38 and criminal39 law terms.
In fact, should this equivalence be viewed favourably from the point of view of social
protection, since it aims to “socialise the costs of contagion” 40, there is no doubt that new
and atypical risks of infection, such as Covid-19 contagion, can have consequences for
employer liability, as will be seen below.
   With the specific purpose to mitigate overly burdensome consequences for companies in
the face of contagion, in fact, Article 29-bis of Decree-Law 23/2020, converted into Law no.
40 of 5 June 2020, began to deal with this delicate issue, specifying that:

    “ai fini della tutela contro il rischio di contagio da COVID-19, i datori di lavoro pubblici e privati
adempiono all’obbligo di cui all’articolo 2087 del codice civile mediante l’applicazione delle prescrizioni
contenute nel protocollo condiviso di regolamentazione delle misure per il contrasto e il contenimento della
diffusione del COVID-19 negli ambienti di lavoro [...].
    (for the purposes of protection against the risk of contagion from COVID-19, public and private
employers fulfil their obligation under Article 2087 of the Civil Code through the application of the
prescriptions contained in the shared protocol for the regulation of measures to combat and contain the spread
of COVID-19 in the workplace [...]).”




36  Giubboni S., Covid-19: obblighi di sicurezza, tutele previdenziali, profili riparatori, in WP CSDLE “Massimo
D’Antona”.IT, 417, 2020, 3-12.
37 La Peccerella L., Infezione da coronavirus e tutela contro gli infortuni e le malattie professionali, in Diritto della Sicurezza

sul Lavoro, 1, 2020, 1-5.
38 Bologna S., Faioli M., Covid-19 e salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro: la prospettiva intersindacale, in Rivista del Diritto

della Sicurezza Sociale, 2, 2020, 385-386.
39 Ludovico G., Il contagio da Covid-19 come infortunio sul lavoro tra copertura INAIL e responsabilità civile, in Rivista del

Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 2, 2020, 353-364. For a broad overview of civil liability in this area, see De Matteis
A., Infortuni sul lavoro e malattie professionali, Giuffrè, Milano, 2011.
40 Maresca A., L’art. 29-bis del decreto liquidità: profili lavoristici, in Giovannone M. (eds.) La responsabilità civile e penale

del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria, Atti del convegno, Aracne Editore, Roma, 2021, 17-19.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                   130
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




   This provision41 was considered an attempt to define the employer’s prevention obligation
better.
   There has been a lively doctrinal debate around these issues and on the fulfilment of the
contents of the Shared Protocol of 24 April 2020 (most recently supplemented by the
updated Protocol of 6 April 202142, henceforth the Protocol) and of the additional sectoral
and company protocols - compliance with which was most recently prescribed by the Prime
Ministerial Decree of 2 March 2021, as integrated in a broader sense by the following Law
Decree n. 52 of 22 April 2021.
   The main focus of the discussion was on the obligation to update the risk assessment
document43: in a restrictive sense, pointing out that the risk of contagion is generic and
exogenous, as well as “contingent and non-permanent”44 risk, whose management is
governed by emergency provisions, a special sanctioning system, and ad hoc45 control bodies;
and, in an extensive sense, configuring such risk as foreseeable, having become endogenous
because it is “aggravated generic risk” and even properly professional due to its presence in
the workplace, confirming the obligation to adopt the so-called unnamed precautions in
compliance with the generic employer obligation ex art. 2087 c.c46.
   The debate appears to be well-founded: while on the one hand art. 28 of Legislative
Decree no. 81/2008 tends to expand the boundaries of the obligation to assess risks; the




41 On the recognition of the debate cfr. Maresca A., Il rischio di contagio da COVID-19 nei luoghi di lavoro: obblighi
di sicurezza e art. 2087 c.c. (prime osservazioni sull’art. 29-bis della l. n. 40/2020), in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 2,
2020, 1-10.
42 Cfr. il Protocollo condiviso di aggiornamento delle misure per il contrasto e il contenimento della diffusione del virus SARS-

CoV-2/COVID-19 negli ambienti di lavoro underwritten on 6 aprile 2021 between Ministero del Lavoro and delle
Politiche Sociali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Commissario Straordinario
emergenza Covid, Inail, Cgil, Cisl, Uil, Ugl, Confsal, Cisal, Usb, Confindustria, Confapi, Confcommercio -
Imprese per l’Italia, Confesercenti, Confartigianato, Cna, Casartigiani, Alleanza Cooperative, Abi, Ania,
Confagricoltura, Coldiretti, Cia, Confservizi, Federdistribuzione, Confprofessioni, Confimi, Confetra.
43 On the other hand, it is not disputed that this obligation applies to employers working in sectors which are

normally exposed to biological risks and, therefore, fall within the scope of the directive l Titolo X TUS. In
these cases, it is established that the biological risk has an occupational origin.
44 Maresca A., nt. (41), 8.
45 This part of the doctrine considers that emergency provisions are special and autonomous provisions,

governing a generic risk that does not originate from the employer's organisation. In this sense, the position di
Pascucci P., Ancora su coronavirus e sicurezza sul lavoro: novità e conferme nello ius superveniens del d.P.C.M. 22 marzo 2020
e soprattutto del d.l. n. 19/2020, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2020, 117-135. Lo stesso A., Coronavirus e
sicurezza sul lavoro, tra “raccomandazioni” e protocolli. Verso una nuova dimensione del sistema di prevenzione aziendale?, in
Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 2, 2019, 98-121; and Covid-19 e tutela della salute e sicurezza dei lavoratori, in Giornale
di diritto del lavoro e di relazioni industriali, 166, 2, 2020, 373-395. Among others A., Maresca A., nt. (41); Pelusi L.
M., Tutela della salute dei lavoratori e COVID-19: una prima lettura critica degli obblighi datoriali, in Diritto della Sicurezza
sul Lavoro, 2, 2019, 122-137; Lazzari C., Per un (più) moderno diritto della salute e della sicurezza sul lavoro: primi spunti
di riflessione a partire dall’emergenza da Covid-19, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2020, 136-149.
46 Dovere S., Covid-19 e tutela della salute e sicurezza dei lavoratori, in Giornale di diritto del lavoro e di relazioni industriali,

n. 166, 2, 2020, 373-395; Bologna S., Faioli M., (38), 382-383; Tullini P., Tutela della salute dei lavoratori e valutazione
del rischio biologico: alcune questioni giuridiche, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 2, 2020, 335-351; Calafiore D.,
La sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro tra disciplina dell’emergenza da Covid-19 e disciplina ordinaria, in giustiziacivile.com, 20
April 2020; Picco G., Sicurezza sul lavoro, responsabilità datoriali e sanzioni nell’emergenza epidemiologica da SARS-COV-
2, in Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 4, 2020, 1338; De Falco G., La normativa in tema di salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di
lavoro a confronto con l’emergenza epidemiologica da covid-19, in Giustizia insieme, 22 April 2020.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                     131
     Maria Giovannone                                                                        Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                    Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                    Section: Miscellaneous




concept of prevention according to art. 2, lett. n) of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008, on the
other hand, lends itself to an extensive interpretation.47
   However, bearing in mind that the identification of additional measures concerning those
established by the Protocols could require even more specific and currently non-existent
“scientific coverage laws”, there is a need to better delineate the employer’s obligation
concerning the risk of contagion in order to identify the prevention measures to be adopted.
   There is no quick answer, and prudence is recommended. In the meantime, it is in the
interest of employers to heed the “advice” to update risk assessment and add the measures
taken to minimise workers’ exposure at the risk of contagion in the risk assessment
document, in writing through a applicable addendum.48


4.1. Art. 29 bis of Law Decree 23/2020.

    Even the most wide-ranging of the safety obligation regarding the risk of contagion
reintroduce the issue of employer liability along the lines of past discussions on multifactorial
and scientifically “uncertain” risks such as, for example, the case of lung cancer related to
occupational exposure to asbestos. In fact, concerning this type of risk, case law has argued
it difficult to demonstrate the existence of a causal link between the disease and the work
performance unless this is not supported by scientific coverage laws beyond all reasonable
doubt49.
    Similarly, the question has again arisen concerning the risk of contagion from Covid-19
and the fact that scientific certainties have not yet been firmly established. 50 Consequently,
in the face of a broad obligation such as provided for in Article 2087 of the Civil Code, there
could be cases of non-fulfilment on the part of the employer arising from the failure to adopt
precautions51 for which the burden of proving implementation is more difficult in court. This
is especially the case in criminal proceedings, where the employer, in the light of the technical
and scientific advances on risk management, may, in cases of contagion at work, be held
accountable, on the basis of the assessment of the expertise, diligence, and prudence of his
conduct, in order to meet the general fulfilment of the safety obligation.


47 CJEU - Case C-49/00, Commission v. Italy [2001] ECLI:EU:C:2001:611.
48 Natullo G., Covid-19 e sicurezza sul lavoro: nuovi rischi, vecchie regole?, in W.P. Massimo d’Antona, 413, 2020; See
Natullo G., Ambiente di lavoro e tutela della salute, Giappichelli, Torino, 2020, 28. In administrative practice, this
approach has been taken up by the ‘Ispettorato Nazionale del Lavoro’ with ruling on. 89, 13 March 2020.
49 The turning point was the well-known Franzese judgment of the SS.UU. penal del 2002, which imposed the

criterion of “elevata probabilità logica o credibilità razionale” ("high logical probability or rational credibility"), as a
substitute for absolute certainty. In contrast, civil causation is oriented towards the criterion of the c.d. normalità
causale, or “more probably that not”. Cfr. Cass. 11 gennaio 2008, n. 581/2008; Cass. 10 gennaio 2011, n. 306/2011.
50 On the risk of exposure to asbestos, case law is based on an appreciation of the degree of probability close

to certainty (Cass. 25 settembre 2001, n. 5716) or probability approaching certainty (Cass. 10 luglio 2002, n.
30328). Cass. 24 gennaio 2014, n. 1477 speaks of “qualified probability”. For a more in-depth analysis of the
doctrinal positions on the subject, refer to the complete discussion by Fabiani M., Bonanni E., Il danno da
amianto. Profili risarcitori e tutela medico-legale, Giufrrè, Milano, 2013.
51 Marazza M., L’art. 2087 c.c. nella pandemia Covid-19 (e oltre), in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 2, 2020, 267-

286, that the Protocol’s flexible provisions include, for example, the use of smart working, where this is not
mandatory.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                            132
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




    According to the criminal doctrine, it would follow that art. 2087 c.c. is still referred to as
a modal rule, rather than as the foundation of the debt of safety, whose “modal
specification”52 concerning the risk-contagion lies in the Protocol.
    In order to avoid the (improbable) search for a causal link, some advocate it opportune
to modify art. 437 of the Criminal Code, which punishes employers failing to provide the
necessary precautions to prevent accidents at work.53 Indeed, even though the legislator has
qualified the contagion as an accident54, this qualification is not relevant in the criminal field,
where the contagion is qualified as an occupational disease. For these reasons, the
amendment of art. 437 c.p. - which is relevant only for accidents at work - could facilitate
identifying the crime to be charged to the employer utterly disinterested in this risk.
    These considerations, above all from the perspective of criminal law, appear to reduce the
innovative scope of art. 29-bis of Law Decree 23/2020, since the fulfilment of art. 2087 c.c.,
through the correct application of the Protocols, does not preclude the imputation of the
employer’s general guilt for non-compliance with the general safety obligation. This would,
in fact, only be possible through the refinement of the regulation which should prescribe the
fulfilment of the obligation under art. 2087 of the Civil Code, exclusively through the
application of the measures of the Protocols. Until then, the provision “seems destined to
assume a pedagogical value, indicative but not decisive”.
    On the contrary, the impact of art. 29-bis in the labour field would seem to be somewhat
different. Given that, by safeguarding the general obligation of safety through measures
established by the instruments of social dialogue and consultation (in tripartite and bipartite
form), the norm represents a “possible regulatory model to be adopted in a future
perspective: that of anchoring safety measures to more precise and stringent regulatory data”
55
  .



52 Ambrosetti E. M., Carraro L., Emergenza, coronavirus e profili penali: «Fase 2» e sicurezza sul lavoro, in Responsabilità
civile e previdenza, 4, 2020, 1060.
53 Santoriello C., L’orientamento della giurisprudenza penale, in Giovannone M. (eds.) La responsabilità civile e penale del

datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria, Atti del convegno, Aracne Editore, Roma, 2021, 45-53; Fiandaca G.,
Musco E., Diritto penale, parte speciale, I, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2007, 519; Riverditi M., Interesse o vantaggio dell’ente e
reati (colposi) in materia di sicurezza sul lavoro: cronistoria e prospettive di una difficile convivenza, in Archivio Penale, 2, 2011,
393; Pulitanò D., Gestione del rischio da esposizioni professionali, in Cassazione penale, 2, 2006, 778; Muscatiello V. B.,
La tutela altrove. Saggio sulla tutela dell’Homo Faber nel codice penale, Giappichelli, Torino, 2004, 59-150; Di Giovanni
G., Sulla equiparazione tra “infortunio” e “malattia professionale” nell'art. 437 c.p., in Giustizia Penale, 2000, 25; Vacca
G., La funzione prevenzionale dell’art. 437 c.p. nell'esperienza giudiziaria, in Aa.Vv., Prevenzione e repressione nella sicurezza
e igiene del lavoro, Quaderni del CSM, Roma, 1988, 81. For the interpretation of the concept of 'accident at work'
by caselaw see Carletti E., La nozione penalistica di infortunio sul lavoro: l’art. 437 c.p. fra Corte costituzionale, interprete e
novellistica, in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza, 1983, VI, 55. On this point see Cass. 1 marzo 2021, n.
7939, in which, in continuity with the prevailing orientation of the caselaw of legality, it was pointed out that
"(a)the purposes of the configurability of the crime hypothesis described in Art. 437 cod., however of a
sufficient number of people gravitating around the working environment to achieve the condition of an
indefinite extension of the danger". In the same way Cass. 23 January 2018, n. 4890; Cass. 20 January 2016, n.
18168; Cass. 2 December 2005 No 6393.
54 Art. 42, co. 2, del D.l. n. 18/2020, conv. con mod. dalla L. n. 27/2020.
55 Maresca A., L’art. 29-bis del decreto liquidità: profili lavoristici and Mezzetti E., L’efficacia esimente del modello

organizzativo per la sicurezza nel contesto emergenziale – Riflessioni conculsive, both in Giovannone, nt. (40), respectively
17 and 55.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                      133
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                               Section: Miscellaneous




5. A public-private partnership regulatory model?

    From what has been analysed so far, a future opportunity emerges, i.e. the opportunity to
develop more dynamic and resilient prevention tools in the face of complex or emergency
situations and new types of risk, requiring assessment methodologies that are, in part,
different from those adopted for traditional risks.56 Indeed, these new situations may
question the traditional classifications of risk levels on which safety obligations57 depend and
make it more difficult to assess the employer’s exact compliance with his obligations.
    Therefore, the effort made by companies to rapidly adopt anti-contravention measures
has once again brought to the forefront the opportunity to adopt practical and participatory
tools capable of rapidly managing changes and new coefficients of the safety obligation.
    Also, in the logic of balancing the effectiveness of prevention models under the hard law58
matrix, it may be helpful to consider tools that enhance the role of the private actor in the
regulation of the matter59, just based on the experience “pilot” of the anti-contagion
protocols.
    Some provisions already present in the Italian legal system and currently poorly cultivated
are included in this context. Reference is made to the provisions of Legislative Decree
231/2001 and art. 30 of Legislative Decree 81/2008, to the system of qualification of
companies under articles 6 and 27 of the Consolidated Law on Industrial Property (TUS),
and the tools of good practice and codes of conduct.60
    These regulations are an example of the integration of hard and soft regulatory techniques,
based on a profound trust in the employer’s ability to directly negotiate the game rules with
the “company risk community” 61, the rules of the game; rules that are all the more effective
if they are validated in the competent institutional bodies and accompanied, in case of non-
compliance, by suitable sanctioning tools.62




56 Giovannone M. Tiraboschi M., Work Organisation, New Forms of Employment and Good Practices for Occupational
Health and Safety: Evidence from Italy within the European Context, in Sargeant M. and Giovannone M. (eds.) Vulnerable
Workers, Safety, Well-being and Precarious Work, Middlesex University, Gower Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, 2011, 93.
57 Rangone N., Semplificazione ed effettività dei controlli sulle imprese, in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico, 3, 2019,

882.
58 Tiraboschi M., Ferrua S., Gruppi di lavoratori esposti a rischi particolari e tipologie di lavoro flessibile: la valutazione del

rischio, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), (25), 569–584; Menghini L., L’evoluzione degli strumenti giuridici volti a
favorire l’effettività della prevenzione, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul lavoro, 2, 2017, 1-35.
59 Brino V., Hard and Soft Law Instruments for regulating Multinational Enterprises: an Unphill Struggle towards Global

Responsibility?, in Aa.Vv. (eds.), Employment Relations and Transformation of the Enterprise in the Global Economy,
Giappichelli, Torino, 2016, 85-108.
60 Natullo G., nt. (48), 23.
61 The effective and graphic definition is from Ciucciovino S., Il quadro italiano, in Ciucciovino S., Marchiori M.

(eds.), Le pratiche partecipative per la tutela della salute e della sicurezza. Il ruolo del rappresentante dei lavoratori per la sicurezza
nel settore dell’igiene ambientale, Ediesse, Roma, 2017, 48.
62 Pasquarella V., L’organizzazione della sicurezza in alcune tipologie di lavoro revisionate dal Jobs Act, in Diritto della

Sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2016, 113-126; Lazzari C., Prime osservazioni a proposito di revisione delle forme contrattuali e
sicurezza sul lavoro, in I Working Papers di Olympus, 41, 2015.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                          134
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




5.1 Organisation and management models.

    Regarding company responsibility, it is well established that the organisational and
management model, adopted under Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, is a useful tool for
integrating upstream prevention into company processes and guaranteeing downstream
effectiveness63; this is all the more so if these circumstances are demonstrated by the prior
sharing of the model by the workers’ representatives. According to authoritative doctrine 64,
such collective verification would, in fact, be an essential element for the suitability of the
adopted model.
    In effect, the organisation and management model (MOG - modello di organizzazione e
gestione) allows the activation of the protocols to prevent the offences contemplated by art.
25-septies of Legislative Decree 231/2001, but above all, it allows the establishment of a
constant exchange of information between the Supervisory Body (OdV), the management and
the other actors in company safety, functional to minimising new and multifactorial risks in
the work environment. This is a practice that can benefit not only and immediately the
company as a legal entity in the event of a damaging event due to non-compliance with
accident prevention regulations, but also the employer as well, should he need to present,
whether for an inspection or in a trial, evidence to support the exact fulfilment of the
obligation of maximum, technologically possible, safety. Moreover, concerning the Covid-

63  In general, on the “modelli 231”, Barboni A., Bizzarro C., Giovannone M., Pasquini F., Tiraboschi M.,
Mutamento dei modelli di organizzazione del lavoro, gestione della sicurezza, certificazione, in M. Tiraboschi, L. Fantini
(eds.), Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009), Commentario al decreto
legislativo n. 81/2008 come modificato e integrato dal decreto legislativo n. 106/2009, Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, 80; Andreani
A., I modelli di organizzazione e gestione, in Persiani M., Lepore M.(eds.) Il nuovo diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 2012,
473; Lottini R., I modelli di organizzazione e gestione, in Giunta F. e Micheletti D. (eds.) Il nuovo diritto penale delleìa
sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2012, 167; Russo Y. Sicurezza e responsabilità “penale-amministrativa” degli enti collettivi: i
modelli di organizzazione e gestione, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L., (25), 95.; Lottini R., Le principali questioni in materia
di modelli di organizzazione, gestione e controllo ex d.lg. n. 231 del 2001 (parte I), in Giurisprudenza di merito, 10, 2013,
2255; Piergalli C., Il modello organizzativo alla verifica della prassi, in Stile A. M., Mongillo V., Stile G (eds.) La
responsabilità da reato degli enti collettivi: a dieci anni dal d-lgs. n. 231/2001, 2013, 375; Giunta F., I modelli di
organizzazione e gestione nel settore antinfortunistico, in Fondaroli D., Zoli C. (eds.), Modelli organizzativi ai sensi del D.Lgs.
n. 231/2001 e tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 1; Gragnoli E., La tutela della salute del
lavoratore e la predisposizione dei modelli organizzativi, in Fondaroli D., Zoli C. (eds.), Modelli organizzativi ai sensi del
D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 e tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 27; Natullo G., Sicurezza del lavoro e
modelli organizzativi: brevi osservazioni su alcuni profili individuali e collettivi, in Fondaroli D. e Zoli C. (eds.), Modelli
organizzativi ai sensi del D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 e tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 52; Vincieri
M., Buone prassi e modelli di organizzazione e gestione nella tutela della sicurezza sul lavoro: distinzioni e possibili interferenze,
in Fondaroli D., Zoli C. (eds.), Modelli organizzativi ai sensi del D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 e tutela della salute e della sicurezza
nei luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 72; Andreani A., Brevi spunti di riflessione sui modelli di organizzazione e di gestionedella sicurezza
sul lavoro, in Pascucci P. (eds.) Salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, FrancoAngeli, 2019, 143-148; Bruno S., Bottiglioni G.,
Art. 17 D.Lgs. 231/2001, in Castronuovo D., De Simone G., Ginevra E., Lionzo A., Negri D., Varraso G.
(eds.), Compliance responsabilità da reato degli enti collettivi, Ipsoa, Milano, 2019; Buoso S., Principio di prevenzione e
sicurezza sul lavoro, Giappichelli, Torino, 2020, 95. On the desirability of integrating prevention requirements
into the MOG, Foti A., Guida operativa alla costruzione e gestione del Modello 231, EPC Editore, Roma, 2015. In
giurisprudenza Cass. 8 giugno 2021, n. 22256; Cass. 1° giugno 2021, n. 21522; Cass. 5 febbraio 2021, n. 4480;
Cass. 27 gennaio 2020, n. 3157; Cass. 31 ottobre 2019, n. 44399; Cass. 06 dicembre 2018, n. 54640; Cass. 23
novembre 2017, n. 53285; Cass. 20 luglio 2016, n. 31210; Cass. 29 aprile 2015, n. 18073; Cass. 24 giugno 2014,
n. 38343.
64 A lesser explored profile of worker participation in safety management is that addressed by Zoppoli L., Il

controllo collettivo sull’efficace attuazione del modello organizzativo per la sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, in I Working Papers di
Olympus, 18, 2012.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                     135
     Maria Giovannone                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                        Section: Miscellaneous




19 emergency, it is appropriate to scale down the most alarmist perspectives on an entity’s
risk of overexposure to administrative liability in case of infection of workers.65
    In the light of the prominence of the organisation in the context of employer liability, the
MOGs are thus inevitably part of the broader question regarding the relationship between
organisations and criminal labour law.
    As clarified by paragraph 3, art. 30 of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008, the model must
provide for an articulation of functions “that ensures the technical skills and powers
necessary for the verification, assessment, management and control of the risk, as well as a
disciplinary system capable of sanctioning the failure to comply with the measures indicated
by the model”.
    Therefore, the precise description of the duties and responsibilities of the persons in
charge of safety management in the company, related to the processes established by the
model, can be a valuable element to identify safety debtors who have not fulfilled their duties.
    These considerations are consistent with the regulatory framework of the Consolidated
Law on health and safety at work which has also attempted to enhance the organisational
virtuosity of the employer through co. 3, art. 16, which provides for a presumption of
compliance with the obligation of supervision in the event that the employer adopts and
effectively implements an organisational and management model according to co. 4, art. 3066.
    Consequently, the idea seems to be confirmed that, through the presumption of the
fulfilment of the obligation to supervise in the case of adoption and effective implementation
of a MOG (para. 3, art. 16 TUS), the legislator intended to tie the criminal liability of the
delegating party “with a double thread”67 to the administrative liability of the entity.
    On the other hand, it could not be otherwise in large companies, where the decision-
making processes (and those positions which guarantee OHS) have a multi-subjective
character: precisely in these contexts, the principle of entrusting tasks - together with that of
effectiveness - fill or empty the employer’s guilt.
    Nonetheless, apart from the provisions of articles 6, paragraph 8, letter m), 30, paragraphs
5 and 6, 11, 51 and 52 of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008, there still appear to be few
operational tools that encourage the adoption of the MOG, both for the correct management
of prevention in the company and for the easy identification of “safety debtors”.
    The function of asseveration (the Italian term is “asseverazione”) the adoption and effective
implementation of the MOG, assigned to the joint bodies by paragraph 3-bis of art. 51,
appears more developed. This activity, which is carried out by implementing specific
technical standards, starting from OHSAS 18001, and soon to be replaced by UNI ISO
45001, is also important. It finds its source in interconfederal, national, territorial, or
company category agreements and represents a manifestation of those agreement regulation
techniques of prevention that we hope to see spread here in the name of shared management
of safety in the company.



65 Mezzetti E., nt. (54).
66 Pascucci P., Dieci anni di applicazione del d.lgs. n. 81/2008, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2018, 16.
67 D’Alessandro F., La delega di funzioni nell'ambito della tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, alla luce

del decreto correttivo n. 106/2009, in Rivista italiana di. diritto e procedura penale, 3, 2010, 1125.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                 136
     Maria Giovannone                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                        Section: Miscellaneous




   Therefore, the asseveration procedure, except for the doubts regarding its effectiveness
in the criminal field68, from the point of view of labour law is consistent with the role of
promotion and collaboration attributed to the joint bodies by Legislative Decree no.
81/200869, assuming an integrative (not substitutive) importance concerning the institutional
controls on the MOG. In fact, in the outcome of this activity, “[...] the supervisory bodies
can take account of the planning of their activities”. 70
   Moreover, the asseveration procedure positively affects the certainty of the safety
obligation. In fact, in those cases in which it is more difficult to prove that every suitable
measure to avoid the harmful event has been adopted, with the asseveration procedure of a
MOG it is easier for employers to demonstrate before the judge that they have fulfilled his
safety obligation ex-ante..71


5.2. The qualification system for companies.

    The qualification system for companies and self-employed workers, governed by art. 27
of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008, is also a prevention tool that supports and rewards the
most virtuous private autonomy in terms of work organisation.
    This is a “fast track” for participation in public tenders and access to funding, public
contributions, and related facilities, based on an innovative system for selecting market
operators. The requirements for this are training processes, the absence of specific violations
in terms of the protection of working conditions, and the adoption of “certified” contractual
and organisational standards under Legislative Decree no. 276/2003. In effect, even though
art. 27 has remained among the unimplemented provisions of the Consolidated Law on
Industrial Safety (TUS) - except for confined spaces72 - like the MOG, art. 27 appears to be
one of the instruments that the legislator has introduced to encourage safety management
that is based not only on compliance with formal obligations but also on the development
and implementation of good organisational practices, within the framework of a system of
rewards. All the more so, the system would encourage raising organisational and safety
standards in production sectors with a high incidence of accidents or in organisationally
complex areas in which intensive use is made of contracts and subcontracts.73

68 An overview of the doctrinal debate cfr. Lazzari C., Gli organismi paritetici nel decreto legislativo 9 aprile 2008, n.
81, in I Working papers di Olympus, 21, 2013, 10-15; Angelini L., Discipline vecchie e nuove in tema di rappresentanze dei
lavoratori per la sicurezza, in I Working Papers di Olympus, 20, 2013; Ricci M., Gli organismi paritetici e il fondo di sostegno,
in Zoppoli L., Pascucci P., Natullo G. (eds.), Le nuove regole per la salute e la sicurezza dei lavoratori, IPSOA, 2010,
329.
69 For a comprehensive review of the role of joint bodies, see S. Ciucciovino, Il quadro italiano, in Ciucciovino S.,

Marchiori M. (eds.), nt. (60), 55-57.
70 Art. 51, co. 3-bis, D.lgs. n. 81/2008.
71 Sharing this idea is Pascucci P., L’asseverazione dei modelli di organizzazione e gestione, in I Working papers di Olympus,

43, 2015, 17, and Del Punta R., Le risposte, in Vallebona A. (eds.), Colloqui giuridici sul lavoro “Sicurezza del lavoro e
certezza del diritto”, in Suppl. “Massimario di giurisprudenza del lavoro”, 2009, 19-20. Contra, Ales E., al., Le risposte, in
Vallebona A. (eds.), ibid, 8-9.
72 By the d.P.R. n. 177/2011.
73 On the other hand, on the necessity of integrating the qualification system into the procurement discipline,

Tiraboschi M., Il sistema di qualificazione delle imprese e dei lavoratori autonomi, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), nt.
(25), 119.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                 137
     Maria Giovannone                                                                           Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                       Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous




   Thus, recent resumption of the work of the Permanent Advisory Commission ex art. 6 of
Leg. Decree no. 81/200874 by the Ministerial Decree of 4 February 2020, is to be welcomed,
considering that this Commission had already set out the qualification requirements in the
past, including the voluntary certification of labour and contract contracts according to Leg.
Decree no. 276/2003 and the adoption of the MOG according to art. 30 TUS. It is precisely
the integration of these instruments - organisational models, certification of labour contracts,
and qualification - to be shared in a participatory manner with the corporate risk community,
that could contribute to a more precise identification of the safety obligation.


6. Anti-contagion protocols and the importance of “participated” safety.

    From the above, seen from the perspective of labour law, the sanctioning machinery in
force in the field of prevention could be supported by using a model of “balanced
participation” of European and international matrix. This model could even go beyond -
obviously in melius - those legal provisions which, on the indication of European directives,
have strengthened the rights of information and consultation of workers and their
representatives.
    Also pertinent, is that due to the crisis in union representation75, participation in this
matter does not always seem to have been particularly effective in our country, especially in
medium and small businesses. For these reasons, it must be admitted that the decision of the
Italian Government and its social partners to deal the health emergency through the adoption
of the Shared Protocol and the considerable production of supplementary protocols has
astonished and gathered international consensus76 and applause77. This regulatory technique
is closer to the specificities of individual production sectors and work contexts and,
consequently, suitable to specify the content of the safety debt.
    In any case, art. 2087 c.c. does attribute the duty to manage safety according to the
parameters of the particularity of the job, experience, and technique78 to the employer.
    Returning to the management of the contagion risk79, the fear would consist in the fact
that the more elastic precautionary rules of the Protocol - which refer to the employer’s
discretion - could prevent the ascertainment of the employer’s guilt80 in criminal proceedings.

74 The halting of the Commission's work on the qualification of companies is attributable to the D.l. n. 69/2013
(c.d. “Decreto del fare”), which had reduced its powers in this area. The legislator has since retraced its steps
by art. 20 del D.lgs. n. 151/2015, which again amended Article 6(8)(g). TUS by bringing back into the
Commission's remit the development of criteria and areas of operation of the qualification system.
75 Caruso B., La rappresentanza delle organizzazioni di interessi tra disintermediazione e reintermediazione, in Argomenti di

Diritto del Lavoro, 3 2017, 555; also related to the representational deficit among digital workers, Ciucciovino S.,
Le nuove questioni di regolazione del lavoro nell'industria 4.0 e nella gig economy: un problem framework per la riflessione, in
Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2018, 1043.
76 Pascucci P., nt. (45), 107, identifies the Protocol with good practice.
77 The Italian example was explored in the ILO report In the face of a pandemic: Ensuring Safety and Health at Work,

dedicated to the World Day for Safety and Health at Work on 20 April 2020. More recently, ILO, The response
of social partners to the COVID-19 crisis in Italy, Background note: Labour relations and COVID-19, October 2020.
78 About art. 2087 c.c. as a reflexive device, Perulli A., «Diritto riflessivo» e autonomia collettiva al tempo di COVID-

19, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 2, 2020, 304.
79 Cfr. supra § 4.
80 Ambrosetti E. M., Carraro L., nt. (52), 89.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                138
     Maria Giovannone                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                        Section: Miscellaneous




Again, the judgement of guilt would be based on violating a precautionary obligation, whose
coefficients seem more uncertain.
   However, belittling their function would lead the discussion to a defeatist level that we do
not intend to support here because if it is true that the elasticity of the Protocols may reduce
the “measurability” of the employer’s conduct, it cannot be denied that their dynamism
represents a strong point. In fact, as stated, for example, in point 13 of the General Protocol
for the prevention of Covid-19 infection, it is mandatory to set up company or territorial
committees to monitor the application of the rules laid down therein and assess their
updating. This very provision represents a dynamic internal adjustment source capable of
even overcoming the failure to update the Protocol.81
   In any case, in the production of supplementary sources containing clear and detailed
rules, in compliance with super-ordinate sources and participatory control mechanisms82, the
pandemic has provided an opportunity to intensify risk co-management mechanisms by
“educating” the social dialogue especially at the company level. This appears all the more
interesting in the labour field if the position of recent jurisprudence of merit, which has also
identified anti-union conduct83 in violation of the Protocol profiles, be further followed; a
conclusion that, if confirmed, could lead to an extension of the chances of protection of
workers’ rights, as well as to greater employer responsibility.
   In reality, this obvious question concerning contagion-risk, arises in the light of many
types of risk that characterise today’s work organisation. Even regarding smart-working and
the prospects of its intensive use in the post-emergency context, the issue of the sufficiency
of information on risks referred to in art. 22, (already much debated in the aftermath of the
approval of law no. 81/2017) vis-a-vis the exact fulfilment of prevention obligations, seems
destined to be bought up once again. Secondly, the need could arise for more effective
regulation of the exact fulfilment of the employer’s obligation in the face of accidents or
occupational diseases whose circumstances escape any possible sphere of control because
they are placed in contexts beyond the “legal availability” of the employer and, in any case,
not framed in the usual context of the event in itinere.84
   Also, in this case, negotiated regulation could help to better define these parameters in
the wake of the experience of shared protocols and help to overcome the idea of remote
work as a “niche institution”85 reserved for large companies and limited areas of activity. This
“self-regulation regulated”86 by the legislation - emergency or “ordinary” as it may be - can
help the operator in identifying clearer and more accurate provisions to facilitate the possible
assessment of the responsibilities of employers, their supporting personnel and the workers
themselves, even in the light of newer and more complex types of risk in the workplace.

81 Parisi O., nt. (40), 41-43.
82 This is also the opinion of Bologna S., Faioli M., nt. (38), 385-386.
83 The reference is to the decree of the Court of Treviso of 2 July 2020 n. 2571 on which in doctrine the note

by Diamanti R., La violazione dei protocolli anticovid-19 come condotta antisindacale, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro,
4, 2020, 788.
84 Giovannone M. Protocolli anti–contagio, adempimenti prevenzionistici e responsabilità: dal t.u. sicurezza alle norme

emergenziali, in Giovannone M., nt. (40), 33-34.
85 Caruso B., Tra lasciti e rovine della pandemia: più o meno smart working?, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 2,

2020, 215.
86 Perulli A., nt. (77), 311.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                 139
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




7. Conclusions.

    Given the interpretative doubts surrounding the regulatory provisions and the related
application problems analysed above, it is clear that intervention on the part of the legislator
is always chosen as the preferred solution.
    The choice of safeguarding the prevention of contagion at work through negotiated
regulation - to which the legislator himself has recognised a general scope through constant
reference to the Protocols in the emergency regulations - offers a regulatory technique that
has several merits: first of all, that of finally placing trust in the partnership between the
public and private actors by means of the tripartite and bipartite social dialogue at national,
territorial, and corporate levels; secondly, that of elaborating punctual - and at the same time
dynamic - provisions for the exact fulfilment of the general obligation of safety ex art. 2087
c.c., able to facilitate reliable verification of responsibility in both civil and criminal
proceedings.
    Indeed, while art. 2087 c.c. has so far been relevant for the a posteriori assessment of
responsibilities relating to injury work, little value appears to have been given to its equally
valid a priori preventative function due to the generality and extent of the obligation
prescribed87. In short, the civil and criminal institutions of protection against injury events
are functioning well, but workers cannot do anything to impose the effective implementation
of the obligation of safety under Article. 2087 cc. on employers.
    On the contrary, the procedural aspect is often reduced to compensation and otherwise
punitive solutions without the forced imposition of the so-called “obligation to do” (see
safety obligation). The consequence is that the monetisation of the satisfaction of the interest
to be protected, improperly or in any case only partially, replaces the effectiveness of
preventive protection.88




                                                           Bibliography


Albi P., La sicurezza sul lavoro e la cultura giuridica italiana fra vecchio e nuovo diritto, in Diritto della
Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2016, 83-98;
Ales E., Occupational Health and Safety: a European and Comparative Legal Perspective, in WP
C.D.S.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”, 12, 2015;
Ales E., Occupational Health and Safety: A Comparative Perspective, in Ales E. (eds), Health and
safety at work, Wolters Kluwer International, 2013, 428-437;
Ambrosetti E. M., Carraro L., Emergenza, coronavirus e profili penali: «Fase 2» e sicurezza sul lavoro,
in Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 4, 2020, 1060;

87 Maresca A., L’art. 29–bis del decreto liquidità: profili lavoristici, in Giovannone M. (eds.) nt. (40), 20.
88 Albi P., La sicurezza sul lavoro e la cultura giuridica italiana fra vecchio e nuovo diritto, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro,
1, 2016, 83-98.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                                       140
 Maria Giovannone                                                                       Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                               Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                               Section: Miscellaneous




Andreani A., I modelli di organizzazione e gestione, in Persiani M., e Lepore M.(eds.) Il nuovo diritto
della sicurezza sul lavoro, 2012, 473;
Andreani A., Brevi spunti di riflessione sui modelli di organizzazione e di gestionedella sicurezza sul lavoro,
in Pascucci P. (eds.), Salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, FrancoAngeli, 2019, 143-148;
Angelini L., La sicurezza del lavoro nell’ordinamento europeo, in I Working Paper di Olympus, 29, 2013;
Angelini L., Discipline vecchie e nuove in tema di rappresentanze dei lavoratori per la sicurezza, in I
Working Papers di Olympus, 20, 2013;
Bacchini F., Sicurezza (del lavoro) e organizzazione (aziendale), in I Working Papers di Olympus, 28,
2013, 16;
Basenghi F., La ripartizione intersoggettiva degli obblighi prevenzionistici, in Galantino L. (eds.), La
sicurezza del lavoro. Commentario ai decreti legislativi 19 settembre 1994 e 19 marzo 1996, n. 242,
Giuffrè, Milano, 1996, 53;
Bologna S., Faioli M., Covid-19 e salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro: la prospettiva intersindacale, in
Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 2, 2020, 385-386;
Brino V., Hard and Soft Law Instruments for regulating Multinational Enterprises: an Unphill Struggle
towards Global Responsibility?, in Aa.Vv. (eds.), Employment Relations and Transformation of the
Enterprise in the Global Economy, Giappichelli, Torino, 2016, 85-108;
Bruno S., Bottiglioni G., Art. 17 D.Lgs. 231/2001, in Castronuovo D., De Simone G.,
Ginevra E., Lionzo A., Negri D., Varraso G., Ipsoa, Milano, (eds.) Compliance responsabilità da
reato degli enti collettivi, 2019;
Buoso S., Principio di prevenzione e sicurezza sul lavoro, Giappichelli, Torino, 2020, 95.
Calafiore D., La sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro tra disciplina dell’emergenza da Covid-19 e disciplina
ordinaria, in giustiziacivile.com, 20 April 2020;
Carletti E., La nozione penalistica di infortunio sul lavoro: l’art. 437 c.p. fra Corte costituzionale, interprete
e novellistica, in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza, 1983, VI, 55;
Caruso B., Tra lasciti e rovine della pandemia: più o meno smart working?, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto
del Lavoro, 2, 2020, 215;
Caruso B., La rappresentanza delle organizzazioni di interessi tra disintermediazione e reintermediazione,
in Argomenti di Diritto del Lavoro, 3 2017, 555;
Castronuovo D., Le fonti della disciplina penale della sicurezza del lavoro: un sistema a più livelli, in
Castronuovo D., Curi F., (eds.), Sicurezza sul lavoro. Profili penali, Giappichelli, Torino, 2019;
Ciucciovino S., Le nuove questioni di regolazione del lavoro nell'industria 4.0 e nella gig economy: un
problem framework per la riflessione, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2018, 1043;
Ciucciovino S., Il quadro italiano, in Ciucciovino S., Marchiori M. (eds.), Le pratiche partecipative
per la tutela della salute e della sicurezza. Il ruolo del rappresentante dei lavoratori per la sicurezza nel settore
dell’igiene ambientale, Ediesse, Roma, 2017, 48;
Corsalini G., De Matteis A., Il concorso tra risarcimento e indennizzo dinanzi alle giurisdizioni superiori
e riflessi sull'azione di rivalsa dall'INAIL, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2019, 151-
182;
Diamanti R., La violazione dei protocolli anticovid-19 come condotta antisindacale, in Rivista Italiana di
Diritto del Lavoro, 4, 2020, 788;




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                       141
 Maria Giovannone                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




Dorssemont F., The Ancillary function of workers’ involvement in safeguarding the fundamental workers’
right to safe and healthy working conditions at the workplace, in L. Guaglianone, F. Malzani (eds.),
Come cambia l’ambiente di lavoro: regole, rischi, tecnologie, Giuffrè, Milano, 2007, 423;
Dovere S., Covid-19 e tutela della salute e sicurezza dei lavoratori, in Giornale di diritto del lavoro e di
relazioni industriali, n. 166, 2, 2020, 373-395;
D’Alessandro F., La delega di funzioni nell'ambito della tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di
lavoro, alla luce del decreto correttivo n. 106/2009, in Rivista italiana di. diritto e procedura penale, 3,
2010, 1125;
De Falco G., La normativa in tema di salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro a confronto con l’emergenza
epidemiologica da covid-19, in Giustizia insieme, 22 April 2020;
De Matteis A., La centralità del lavoratore nel sistema di tutela INAIL. A proposito del manuale di G.
Corsalini, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2021, 143-149;
De Matteis A., Le infezioni da coronavirus come infortunio sul lavoro: le specialità della tutela italiana, in
Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 643-658;
De Matteis A., Infortuni sul lavoro e malattie professionali, Giuffrè, Milano, 2011;
De Vita A., La delega di funzioni, in Natullo G. (eds.) Salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, 2015, 343;
Di Giovanni G., Sulla equiparazione tra “infortunio” e “malattia professionale” nell'art. 437 c.p., in
Giustizia Penale, 2000, 25;
Fabiani M., Bonanni E., Il danno da amianto. Profili risarcitori e tutela medico-legale, Giufrrè, Milano,
2013;
Fantini L., Giuliani A., Salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro. Le norme, l’interpretazione e la prassi,
Giuffrè, Milano, 2015, 97;
Fiandaca G., Musco E., Diritto penale, parte speciale, I, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2007, 519;
Foti A., Guida operativa alla costruzione e gestione del Modello 231, EPC Editore, Roma, 2015;
Furin N., De Negri E., La sicurezza del lavoro: soggetti, responsabilità e sanzioni dopo il correttivo del
testo unico, CELT, 2009, 103;
Gaglione C., Purificato I., Rymkevich O. P., COVID-19 and Labour Law: Italy (update 16 June
2020), in Italian Labour law e-Journal, 13, 1S, 2020;
Gargani A., Le posizioni di garanzia, in Giurisprudenza Italiana, 1, 2016, 214-223;
Giovannone M., Tiraboschi M., Work Organisation, New Forms of Employment and Good Practices
for Occupational Health and Safety: Evidence from Italy within the European Context, in Sargeant M.
and Giovannone M., (eds.) Vulnerable Workers, Safety, Well-being and Precarious Work, Middlesex
University, Gower Publisher, Aldershot, 2011, 93;
Giubboni S., Covid-19: obblighi di sicurezza, tutele previdenziali, profili riparatori, in WP CSDLE
“Massimo D’Antona”.IT, 417, 2020, 3-12;
Giubboni S., I presupposti della responsabilità civile del datore per infortunio sul lavoro nella nomofilachia
della Suprema Corte (con una chiosa sul risarcimento del danno da Covid-19) (Corte di cassazione, sezione
lavoro, 19 giugno 2020, n. 12041), in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 669-689;
Giubboni S., Il risarcimento del danno differenziale da infortunio sul lavoro dopo la legge di bilancio 2019,
in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2019,183-200;
Giunta F., I modelli di organizzazione e gestione nel settore antinfortunistico, in Fondaroli D. e Zoli C.
(eds.), Modelli organizzativi ai sensi del D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 e tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei
luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 1;


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                 142
 Maria Giovannone                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                           Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous




Gragnoli E., La tutela della salute del lavoratore e la predisposizione dei modelli organizzativi, in
Fondaroli D. e Zoli C. (eds.), Modelli organizzativi ai sensi del D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 e tutela della
salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 27;
Guariniello R., Il principio di massima sicurezza tecnologicamente fattibile, in Igiene e Sicurezza del
Lavoro, 1997, 339;
Rangone N., Semplificazione ed effettività dei controlli sulle imprese, in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto
Pubblico, 3, 2019, 882;
Riverso R., Il risarcimento del danno per infortunio e malattia professionali tra riforme tentate e l’incerto
incedere della giurisprudenza, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2020, 27-61;
Lai M., Sicurezza del lavoro e aggiornamento tecnologico, in Diritto e Pratica del Lavoro, 5, 2008, 338;
Lazzari C., Per un (più) moderno diritto della salute e della sicurezza sul lavoro: primi spunti di riflessione
a partire dall’emergenza da Covid-19, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2020, 136-149;
Lazzari C., Prime osservazioni a proposito di revisione delle forme contrattuali e sicurezza sul lavoro, in I
Working Papers di Olympus, 41, 2015;
Lazzari C., L’organizzazione del sistema aziendale di prevenzione: soggetti ed obblighi tecnici, in I Working
Paper di Olympus, 30, 2014;
Lazzari C., Gli organismi paritetici nel decreto legislativo 9 aprile 2008, n. 81, in I Working papers di
Olympus, 21, 2013, 10-15;
Lottini R., Le principali questioni in materia di modelli di organizzazione, gestione e controllo ex d.lg. n.
231 del 2001 (parte I), in Giurisprudenza di merito, 10, 2013, 2255;
Lottini R., I modelli di organizzazione e gestione, in Giunta F. e Micheletti D. (eds.) Il nuovo diritto
penale della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2012, 167;
Ludovico G., Il contagio da Covid-19 come infortunio sul lavoro tra copertura INAIL e responsabilità
civile, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 2, 2020, 353-364;
La Peccerella L., Infezione da coronavirus e tutela contro gli infortuni e le malattie professionali, in Diritto
della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2020, 1-5;
Marazza M., L’art. 2087 c.c. nella pandemia Covid-19 (e oltre), in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro,
2, 2020, 267-286;
Maresca A., L’art. 29-bis del decreto liquidità: profili lavoristici, in Giovannone M. (eds.) La
responsabilità civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria, Atti del convegno,
Aracne Editore, Roma, 2021, 17-19;
Maresca A., Il rischio di contagio da COVID-19 nei luoghi di lavoro: obblighi di sicurezza e art. 2087
c.c. (prime osservazioni sull’art. 29-bis della l. n. 40/2020), in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 2,
2020, 1-10;
Menghini L., L’evoluzione degli strumenti giuridici volti a favorire l’effettività della prevenzione, in Diritto
della Sicurezza sul lavoro, 2, 2017, 1-35;
Mezzetti E., L’efficacia esimente del modello organizzativo per la sicurezza nel contesto emergenziale –
Riflessioni conculsive, in Giovannone M. (eds.) La responsabilità civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel
contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria, Atti del convegno, Aracne Editore, 2021, 55;
Mollichella C., Compiti del servizio di prevenzione e protezione, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.),
Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè,
Milano, 2009, 634;



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                   143
 Maria Giovannone                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




Montuschi L., L’incerto cammino della sicurezza del lavoro fra esigenze di tutela, onerosità e disordine
normativo, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale, 4, 2001, 508;
Muscatiello V. B., La tutela altrove. Saggio sulla tutela dell’Homo Faber nel codice penale, Giappichelli,
Torino, 2004, 59-150;
Natullo G., Ambiente di lavoro e tutela della salute, Giappichelli, Torino, 2020, 28;
Natullo G., Covid-19 e sicurezza sul lavoro: nuovi rischi, vecchie regole?, in W.P. Massimo d’Antona,
413, 2020;
Natullo G., Soggetti e obblighi di prevenzione nel nuovo Codice della sicurezza sui luoghi di lavoro: tra
continuità e innovazioni, in WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”, 91, 2009, 17;
Natullo G., Principi generali della prevenzione e “confini” dell’obbligo della sicurezza, in Rusciano M.,
Natullo G. (eds.), Ambiente e sicurezza del lavoro, Utet, 2007, 79;
Natullo G., La massima sicurezza tecnologica, in Diritto e Pratica del Lavoro, 12, 1997, 815;
Natullo G., Sicurezza del lavoro e modelli organizzativi: brevi osservazioni su alcuni profili individuali e
collettivi, in Fondaroli D. e Zoli C. (eds.), Modelli organizzativi ai sensi del D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 e
tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 52;
Paonessa C., «La tutela penale della sicurezza sul lavoro. «Luci ed ombre del diritto vivente» 8/9 maggio
2014, Siena, in Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 3, 2017, 1657;
Paonessa C., Debito di sicurezza e delega di funzioni nelle società di capitali, in Campanella P.,
Pascucci P. (eds.), La sicurezza sul lavoro nella galassia delle società di capitali, in I Working Papers di
Olympus, 44, 2015, 124;
Padovani T., La delega di funzioni tra vecchio e nuovo sistema di prevenzione antinfortunistica, in
Cassazione penale, 2011, 1581;
Parisi O., La vigilanza sul rispetto delle misure anti-contagio nella prassi dell’INL, in Giovannone M.
(eds.) La responsabilità civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria, Atti del
convegno, Aracne Editore, 2021, 41-43;
Pascucci P., Covid-19 e tutela della salute e sicurezza dei lavoratori, in Giornale di diritto del lavoro e di
relazioni industriali, 166, 2, 2020, 373-395;
Pascucci P., Ancora su coronavirus e sicurezza sul lavoro: novità e conferme nello ius superveniens del
d.P.C.M. 22 marzo 2020 e soprattutto del d.l. n. 19/2020, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1,
2020, 117-135;
Pascucci P., Coronavirus e sicurezza sul lavoro, tra “raccomandazioni” e protocolli. Verso una nuova
dimensione del sistema di prevenzione aziendale?, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 2, 2019, 98-121;
Pascucci P., Dieci anni di applicazione del d.lgs. n. 81/2008, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1,
2018, 16;
Pascucci P., L’asseverazione dei modelli di organizzazione e gestione, in I Working papers di Olympus,
43, 2015, 17;
Pasquarella V., L’organizzazione della sicurezza in alcune tipologie di lavoro revisionate dal Jobs Act, in
Diritto della Sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2016, 113-126;
Pellegrini T., L’onere della prova nella responsabilità ex art. 2087 c.c. e gli obblighi di protezione, in
Giurisprudenza italiana, 6, 2018, 1352-1357;
Pelusi L. M., Tutela della salute dei lavoratori e COVID-19: una prima lettura critica degli obblighi
datoriali, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 2, 2019, 122-137;



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                 144
 Maria Giovannone                                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




Perulli A., «Diritto riflessivo» e autonomia collettiva al tempo di COVID-19, in Rivista Italiana di
Diritto del Lavoro, 2, 2020, 304;
Picco G., Sicurezza sul lavoro, responsabilità datoriali e sanzioni nell’emergenza epidemiologica da SARS-
COV-2, in Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 4, 2020, 1338;
Piergallini C., Il modello organizzativo alla verifica della prassi, in Stile A. M., Mongillo V., Stile G
(eds.) La responsabilità da reato degli enti collettivi: a dieci anni dal d-lgs. n. 231/2001, 2013, 375;
Pisani N., Posizioni di garanzia e colpa di organizzazione nel diritto penale del lavoro, in Rivista
Trimestrale di Diritto Penale dell’Economia, 1-2, 2009, 155;
Piva D., La responsabilità del “vertice” per organizzazione difettosa nel diritto penale del lavoro, Jovene
editore, 2011;
Rampioni R., Dalla parte degli «ingenui». Considerazioni in tema di tipicità, offesa e cd. «giurisprudenza
creativa», Cedam, 2007, 65;
Pulitanò D., Gestione del rischio da esposizioni professionali, in Cassazione penale, 2, 2006, 778;
Ricci M., Gli organismi paritetici e il fondo di sostegno, in Zoppoli L., Pascucci P., Natullo G. (eds.),
Le nuove regole per la salute e la sicurezza dei lavoratori, IPSOA, 2010, 329;
Riverditi M., Interesse o vantaggio dell’ente e reati (colposi) in materia di sicurezza sul lavoro: cronistoria e
prospettive di una difficile convivenza, in Archivio Penale, 2, 2011, 393;
Romei R., Il campo di applicazione del d. lgs. n. 626 del 1994 e i soggetti (artt. 1, 2 e 3), in Montuschi
L. (eds.), Ambiente, salute, sicurezza: per una gestione integrata dei rischi di lavoro, Giappichelli,
Torino, 1997, 77;
Russo A., Delega di funzioni e obblighi del datore di lavoro non delegabili, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini
L. (eds.), Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009),
Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, 344;
Russo Y. Sicurezza e responsabilità “penale-amministrativa” degli enti collettivi: i modelli di
organizzazione e gestione, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L., (eds.), Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei
luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, 95;
Sandulli P., Pandolfo A., Faioli M., Coronavirus e responsabilità datoriale da infortunio sul lavoro, in
Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 631-641;
Sandulli P., Pandolfo A., Faioli M., Coronavirus, regresso e danno differenziale. Contributo al dibattito,
in WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, 420, 2020;
Santoriello C., L’orientamento della giurisprudenza penale, in Giovannone M. (eds.) La responsabilità
civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria, Atti del convegno, Aracne Editore,
Roma, 2021, 45-53;
Soprani P., Inderogabilità non dismettibilità delle posizioni di garanzia prevenzionistiche, in Igiene e
Sicurezza del Lavoro, 17, 2, 2013, 61-64;
Soprani P., L’obbligo del ricorso alla migliore tecnologia disponibile, in Ambiente & Sicurezza, 12, 2005,
85;
Sorbello P., Delega di funzioni e sicurezza sul lavoro: brevi considerazioni tra prescritta formalità e
imprescindibile effettività, in Indice Penale, 13, 2, 2010, 647;
Tiraboschi M., Il sistema di qualificazione delle imprese e dei lavoratori autonomi, in Tiraboschi M.,
Fantini L. (eds.), Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n.
106/2009), Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, 119;



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                    145
 Maria Giovannone                                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




Tiraboschi M., Ferrua S., Gruppi di lavoratori esposti a rischi particolari e tipologie di lavoro flessibile:
la valutazione del rischio, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei
luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè, Milano, 2009, 569–584;
Tullini P., Tutela della salute dei lavoratori e valutazione del rischio biologico: alcune questioni giuridiche,
in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 2, 2020, 335-351;
Vacca G., La funzione prevenzionale dell’art. 437 c.p. nell'esperienza giudiziaria, in Aa.Vv., Prevenzione
e repressione nella sicurezza e igiene del lavoro, Quaderni del CSM, Roma, 1988, 81;
Vallebona A. (eds.), Colloqui giuridici sul lavoro “Sicurezza del lavoro e certezza del diritto”, in Suppl.
“Massimario di giurisprudenza del lavoro”, 2009;
Vincieri M., Buone prassi e modelli di organizzazione e gestione nella tutela della sicurezza sul lavoro:
distinzioni e possibili interferenze, in Fondaroli D. e Zoli C. (eds.), Modelli organizzativi ai sensi del
D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 e tutela della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, 2014, 72;
Zoppoli L., Il controllo collettivo sull’efficace attuazione del modello organizzativo per la sicurezza nei luoghi
di lavoro, in I Working Papers di Olympus, 18, 2012.




Copyright © 2021 Maria Giovannone. This article is released under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/12946                                                                    146
