a. New or Expected Developments
According to case law:
i. It is possible to be both an employee (manager) and an independent contractor (member of the board of directors) of the same company, when such person, as a manager, is subject to the control of the president and the board of directors; while, as a member of the board, does not have full powers (Supreme Court, 18 September 1995, no. 9864);
ii. With specific reference to betting shops’ personnel, an employment relationship could be established even if the worker can decide whether to accept or not to work, and whether to actually come to work or not, without the need to justify such actions (Supreme Court, 5 May 2005, no. 9343);
iii. The activity performed by the so-called “pony express” can be considered that of an independent contractor if the worker uses his/her own means of transportation, bearing the relevant costs and risks, and if he/she decides all the aspects (itinerary, period of the day, etc.) connected to the deliveries (Supreme Court, 20 January 2011, no. 1238);
iv. Since the journalist’s duties are characterized by a certain autonomy, an employment relationship occurs when the journalist is considered part of the company organization: that is, the journalist regularly writes articles on specific topics or columns, and he/she is available even between one assignment and the next. On the other hand, other factors like the place of work and the absence of a fixed working time are unimportant (Supreme Court, 9 September 2008, no. 22882);
v. Call-center personnel may be considered as employees if they make phone calls following directives on the number and the outcome of the same (Supreme Court, 14 April 2008, no. 9812);
vi. The communication sent by the employer to employees, clients, collaborators and suppliers, in which a consultant is qualified as responsible for a sector, and head of the sales department, cannot be considered decisive for the qualification of the relationship (Supreme Court, 27 July 2009, no. 17455);
vii. The presumption of subordination exists in the relationship between a pharmaceutical company and a pharmaceutical representative where the latter is subject to close supervision and control by his superior that deprives him of any kind of autonomy (Supreme Court, 23 October 2001, no. 13027);
viii. The job of training performed by a tennis coach in an academic sports center, where he organizes his own job, also with regard to attendance and schedules, cannot be re-characterized as an employment relationship (Supreme Court, 1 December 2008, no. 28525).
b. Recent Amendments to the Law
The recent amendments to the rules governing self-employment and CO.CO.CO. contracts, have tried to better distinguish the employment and self-employment relationships, limiting the future intervention of case law.