Referendum, what are we voting for? The explanation of the five questions

2) «Small businesses - Layoffs and related compensation: Partial repeal» – The card is orange and reads: «Do you want the repeal of Article 8 of Law No. 604 of 15 July 1966, containing “Rules on individual layoffs”, as replaced by Article 2, paragraph 3, of Law No. 108 of 11 May 1990, limited to the words: “between one”, the words “and a maximum of 6” and the words “The maximum amount of the aforementioned compensation may be increased by up to 10 months’ salary for employees with seniority of more than ten years and up to 14 months’ salary for employees with seniority of more than twenty years, if employed by an employer who employs more than fifteen employees.”?».

Here, instead, more protections are requested for workers in SMEs, with fewer than 16 employees . In particular, the request is to cancel the maximum limit of 6 months' compensation that a fired worker can obtain, even if a judge deems the termination of the employment relationship illegitimate. By ticking "yes", the request is therefore to raise the maximum limit of six months' compensation and leave it to the judge to decide the fair compensation, without limits and taking into account aspects such as the seriousness of the violation, the economic capacity of the company, family burdens and the age of the worker.

3) «Partial repeal of provisions on the application of a term to subordinate employment contracts, maximum duration and conditions for extensions and renewals» – The card is grey and reads: «Do you want the repeal of Article 19 of Legislative Decree no. 81 of 15 June 2015, containing “Organic regulation of employment contracts and revision of the legislation on duties, pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 7, of Law no. 183 of 10 December 2014”, paragraph 1, limited to the words “not exceeding twelve months. The contract may have a longer duration, but in any case”, the words “in the presence of at least one of the following conditions”, the words “in the absence of the provisions referred to in letter a), in the collective agreements applied in the company, and in any case by 31 December 2025, for technical, organizational and production needs identified by the parties;” and the words “b bis)”; paragraph 1-bis, limited to the words "lasting more than twelve months" and the words "from the date of exceeding the twelve-month term"; paragraph 4, limited to the words "in the event of renewal," and the words "only when the overall term exceeds twelve months"; article 21, paragraph 01, limited to the words "freely in the first twelve months and, subsequently,"?".

The aim here is to limit the abuse of fixed-term contracts. Today, you can sign up to 12 months without indicating the reason why you choose a temporary contract instead of a permanent one. A victory for the yes vote would introduce the obligation for companies to indicate specific reasons for fixed-term contracts lasting less than 12 months .

4) «Exclusion of joint liability of the client, contractor and subcontractor for injuries suffered by an employee of a contracting or subcontracting company, as a consequence of the specific risks inherent in the activity of the contracting or subcontracting companies: Repeal» – The card is pink and reads: «Do you want the repeal of art. 26, paragraph 4, of Legislative Decree no. 81 of 9 April 2008, containing “Implementation of Article 1 of Law no. 123 of 3 August 2007, regarding the protection of health and safety in the workplace” as amended by art. 16 of Legislative Decree no. 106 of 3 August 2009, by art. 32 of Legislative Decree no. 69 of 21 June 2013, converted with amendments by Law no. 98 of 9 August 2013, as well as by art. 13 of Legislative Decree 21 October 2021, no. 146, converted with amendments by Law 17 December 2021, no. 215, limited to the words “The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to damages resulting from specific risks inherent in the activity of contracting or subcontracting companies.”?».

Here we are talking about health and safety at work. The current legislation prevents in the event of an accident from extending liability to the company that contracted the work. In the event of a victory for the yes, liability would also be extended to the client .

5) «Italian citizenship: Halving from 10 to 5 years of the time of legal residence in Italy of a non-EU adult foreigner for the application to be granted Italian citizenship» – The card is yellow and reads: «Do you wish to repeal Article 9, paragraph 1, letter b), limited to the words “adopted by an Italian citizen” and “subsequent to the adoption”; as well as letter f), containing the following provision: “f) to a foreigner who has resided legally for at least ten years in the territory of the Republic.”, of Law No. 91 of 5 February 1992, containing new provisions on citizenship”?».

Here the topic changes, we are talking about the time to obtain Italian citizenship, which in the event of a victory for the yes vote would be halved from 10 to 5 years . Today a foreign person, citizen of a non-EU country, to apply for citizenship must have legally resided in Italy for 10 years, as required by law 91 of 1992. With the victory of the yes vote that rule would be cancelled and we would return to the requirement introduced in Italy in 1865, which required that the years of continuous residence to be able to apply for Italian citizenship were 5.

(Unioneonline/L)