Report held on June 20, 2008 by Adv. Antonio Salvatore University of Ferrara in the conference
"D. LGS. N. 231/2001 - RESPONSIBILITY '"Criminal" of legal persons - ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL: ISSUES AND PROBLEMS "
at the Aula Magna of the Faculty of Law
The term" external sanctions "meant to refer to the apparatus of consequences afflictive contained in the second section of the Legislative Decree No 231/2001. We use the adjective "external" is because it is a disciplinary system, having public, place "outside" the organizational model and intended to apply as a result of the commission of the offenses contained in the "catalog" of Articles. 24 et seq. Law it is because the penalties are imposed by one party, the criminal court, "external" institution.
The expression "internal sanctions" means, however, the system of sanctions, of a disciplinary nature, in defense of place - and "inside", to form an integral part - of the organizational models (governed by the Articles. 6 and 7 of Ordinance) to ensure their effectiveness.
The apparatus of disciplinary actions by the company is, therefore, an auxiliary force, as a support that complements the public law enforcement system "external" nell’accezione sopra richiamata, per perseguirne le medesime finalità.
§ 1. LE SANZIONI “ESTERNE”
L’art. 9 del d.lgs. n. 231/2001 contiene l’elenco delle sanzioni per gli illeciti amministrativi dipendenti da reato: sanzione pecuniaria, sanzioni interdittive, confisca e pubblicazione della sentenza.
In considerazione dei limiti di tempo imposti, ci si concentrerà su singoli aspetti relativi alle sanzioni che appaiono di particolare interesse.
§ 1.1. SANZIONE PECUNIARIA
La commisurazione di tale sanzione avviene secondo un inedito (per il nostro sistema) meccanismo “per quote”, ispirato alla legislazione di altri Paesi europei.
Si è parlato di sistema structure "biphasic", as the shares subject to a dual quantification made by the judge: determination of the single quote (from a minimum of € 258.00 to a maximum of € 1,549.00 in relation to economic conditions and institution's capital) and the number of shares (for a total of no less and no more than a hundred thousand, given the seriousness of the crime): the multiplication of the number of shares for the amount allocated to the quota will determine the penalty specifically applies to the entity.
In the first paragraph of art. 11 refers to the manner in which the sanction, which is evaluating three aspects: the severity of fact, the degree of responsibility of the activity carried out to eliminate or reduce the impact of the event or prevent the commission of further offenses.
It is clear that the criterion of "seriousness of the act is similar to that provided by art. 133, first paragraph of the Criminal Code: it is worth noting, however, that in art. 133 speaks of "the gravity of the offense," as proof of the fact that the expression used by d. lgs. No 231/2001 refers to an evaluation criterion of conduct purely objective, detached from any subjective parameter.
E 'was, again, noted that the d. lgs. No 231/2001 does not contain a reference to the provisions of dell’art. 133, comma 2 c.p., che si riferisce alla “capacità a delinquere”: si pone, pertanto, un problema circa la rilevanza delle precedenti condanne dell’ente.
Come noto, nei processi penali i precedenti rilevano principalmente ai fini della commisurazione della pena, nel quadro della capacità a delinquere e possono, inoltre, rilevare ai fini della (mancata concessione) della sospensione condizionale della pena, come motivo della prognosi negativa del giudice.
Nel sistema delineato nel d. lgs. n. 231/2001 non è dato rinvenire un istituto simile, non stabilendosi, nel decreto, che nella determinazione del numero delle quote il giudice debba tener conto delle precedenti condanne inflitte all’ente. Previous
are under consideration for recurrence (art. 20), which, in turn, points out that the assumption of Disqualification (Article 13) and more specifically as a prerequisite for the application of such a final (art. 16). §
1.2.
disqualification sanctions are listed in art. 13, d. lgs. to which they refer.
Here, we focus on the provisions of art. 15, d. lgs. No 231/2001, for which where the conditions for the imposition of a penalty disqualification determines that the interruption of the entity, the court, instead of applying the penalty, provides for the continuation of entity by a commissioner for a period equal to the duration of the disqualification penalty that would have been applied, on fulfillment of various conditions. With the ruling that provides for the continuation of the activity, the court determines the duties and powers of the Commissioner and, they add, the Commissioner can not perform acts of extraordinary administration without judicial authorization.
occurred in the case of two entities (companies) which had been imposed the sanction of disqualification of the interruption, with the appointment of a Commissioner, who claimed to participate in a public tender without permission of the GIP and were excluded.
companies resorted to against TAR the measure of exclusion: the TAR (TAR Puglia, 03/08/2005) dismissed the appeal, considering that the authorization of the unfailing and GIP, on the assumption that participation fell indications negotiated between the acts of extraordinary administration.
The Council of State (Section V, 07/13/2006) overturned the decision, stressing that the law (citing, for all, Cass. Civ. Sect. I 18/10/1997 No 10229) has long been settled the view that, in terms of business activity, the criterion for distinguishing between ordinary and extraordinary administration can not be that of the character "conservative" or otherwise of the place to be (criterion, di regola, per la sola amministrazione del patrimonio degli incapaci), in quanto l’attività imprenditoriale presuppone, necessariamente, il compimento di atti di disposizione di beni, con la conseguenza che l’indicata distinzione va invece fondata sulla relazione in cui l’atto si pone con la gestione normale (quindi “ordinaria”) del tipo di impresa di cui si tratta e sulle dimensioni in cui essa viene esercitata. Con riferimento alla partecipazione a procedure di gara, come quella sub iudice, da parte dell’impresa ricorrente, alla luce delle dimensioni di essa e della circostanza che la società era stata costituita anche per ottenere l’affidamento di servizi del genere di cui si trattava, il Consiglio di Stato ha ritenuto che tale attività dovesse essere considerata di ordinaria amministrazione.
§ 1.3. CONFISCA
Ci si sofferma sull’oggetto della confisca.
L’art. 19, comma primo, lo ravvisa nel prezzo o nel profitto del reato (“rectius”, i beni causalmente e direttamente collegati col fatto di reato, essendo importante sottolineare che il legislatore limita la confisca ai proventi del reato e non estende la misura all’intero patrimonio dell’ente).
Per prezzo del reato si intende il compenso dato o promesso per indurre, istigare o determinare altro soggetto a commettere il reato, ovvero quanto è servito per commettere l’offesa.
Per profitto si intende normalmente il economic benefit that you receive as a result of the commission of the offense, or representing the gain earned from illegal activity.
The Supreme Court (Cass. Sez. VI, 12/9/2006 No 32,627), with regard to profit, made it clear that the concept of "significant benefit" in Article. 13, d. lgs. (Condition for the applicability of disqualification sanctions) is not the one referred to in Art. 19 (profit as the object of confiscation). Under Article. 19, the Court continues, the profit confiscable profit can only be understood in the strict sense, as an immediate consequence of the economic crimes that may correspond to net ricavato.
Altro problema, connesso al precedente, attiene alla possibilità di confiscare il profitto complessivamente conseguito dalla commissione dell’illecito (il vero e proprio ricavo) o, piuttosto, solo l’effettivo guadagno (il profitto al netto degli investimenti e dei costi sostenuti dall’ente prima o durante la commissione del reato).
La Cassazione (Cass. Sez. VI, 12/9/2006 n. 32627) ha recentemente definito il profitto confiscabile come corrispondente all’utile netto ricavato dal reato, al netto dei costi.
Su tale linea interpretativa il Tribunale di Milano (11/12/2006), in un caso di corruzione nel settore degli appalti per la costruzione di strade, ha quantificato il profitto parametrandolo all’utile netto. Il Tribunale ha evidenziato che “le opere commissionate erano effettivamente realizzate con l’assunzione dei relativi costi e, pertanto, ha ritenuto che si dovesse recuperare il concetto di profitto espresso dagli stessi imprenditori coinvolti. Più volte, infatti, si è verificato che negli ambienti delle imprese impegnate nelle costruzioni stradali si ritenesse di poter valutare il profitto di impresa conseguente all’aggiudicazione delle opere nella misura del 10 – 15% del valore stesso dei lavori. Tale quantificazione trova, peraltro, un aggancio normativo nell’art. 122 del d.p.r. 554/1999 (regolamento di attuazione della legge n. 109 del 1994) che quantifica il danno risarcibile a favore dell’appaltatore in caso di recesso della P.A. nella misura del 10%”.
Utilizzando la misura del 10% del valore delle opere come solida base di valutazione, il Tribunale non solo ha concluso per l’insussistenza del profitto di rilevante entità di cui all’art. 13 del d. lgs. n. 231/2001, ma ha disposto la confisca per equivalente del profitto quantificato nella misura del 10% del valore complessivo dei lavori.
Di tesi opposta un’ordinanza cautelare emessa dal Tribunale di Napoli (g.i.p. 26/6/2007) nella quale si sostiene che “(…) se per un’attività lecita è del tutto logico ipotizzare costi imputabili al ricavo di cui si consenta la deduzione, nel caso di attività illecita non sussiste alcuna reason to allow the offender to retain what is necessary to cover the costs that would otherwise completely unreasonable, you authorize the recovery of costs incurred for the performance of an activity subject to prosecution. " § 1.4
. PUBLICATION OF JUDGEMENT
Even in relation to that penalty as confiscation, there are problems of coordination with the sanctions applied to individuals.
So, in a case of market manipulation, the company was ordered to pay only a fine, while the accused was applied for the publication of the sentence, with inevitable repercussions, however, the image of the institution (gip Milano, 27/2/2007).
§2. LE SANZIONI “INTERNE”
I modelli di organizzazione, gestione e controllo sono stati definiti “il fulcro” del d. lgs. n. 231/2001. Invero, la loro adozione ed efficace attuazione possiede una duplice valenza: se approntati in via preventiva, determinano l’esenzione da responsabilità dell’ente; se attuati successivamente alla commissione del reato (purché prima della dichiarazione di apertura del dibattimento di primo grado), comportano la riduzione della sanzione pecuniaria e l’inapplicabilità delle sanzioni interdittive, e inoltre la possibilità, in sede esecutiva, di richiedere la conversione della sanzione interdittiva in pecuniaria.
Dei modelli, il decreto tratta negli artt. 6 e 7, il primo in relazione ai reati commessi dai cc.dd. “apicali” (le persone che rivestono funzioni di rappresentanza, amministrazione o direzione dell’ente) e il secondo in riferimento ai reati posti in essere dalle persone sottoposte alla direzione o alla vigilanza degli “apicali” (lavoratori subordinati, lavoratori a progetto, consulenti, collaboratori, agenti, distributori, concessionari di vendita).
In relazione al tema specifico trattato, va segnalato che, secondo un’impostazione, anche se il modello ex art. 7 viene descritto sul presupposto che esso possa distinguersi dal quello inerente ai soggetti “apicali” ed essere, pertanto, separatamente adopted, the agency may adopt only one, with the largest amplitude and is valid for both cases, since the Articles. 6 and 7 contain essentially the same requirements on the verification and elimination of hazards and to guard the specification.
According to another more acceptable approach, but would need a "doubling" of the models, because of different assumptions on which it is based the company's responsibility in relation to crimes committed by the "top" and "controlled" and the different functions that the models are expected to play in both cases.
For clarity, it will feature the first "comprehensive" dell’apparato sanzionatorio interno (sistema disciplinare), valevoli per entrambi i casi, per trattare in seguito del sistema disciplinare con specifico riguardo alle figure degli “apicali” e dei “sottoposti”.
Per garantire l’efficacia esimente e attenuante di cui si è in precedenza parlato, il modello dev’essere non solo “adottato”, ma anche “efficacemente attuato”. L’”efficace attuazione” richiede, tra l’altro, un sistema disciplinare idoneo a sanzionare il mancato rispetto delle regole del codice di condotta e delle procedure operative previste dal modello organizzativo, tanto nei confronti degli apicali, quanto nei confronti dei soggetti sottoposti all’altrui direzione o vigilanza.
La giurisprudenza ha, invero, ritenuto carenti i modelli dalla stessa esaminati nei casi in cui non era “espressamente prevista la comminazione di sanzione disciplinare nei confronti degli amministratori che, per negligenza – ovvero imperizia – non avessero saputo individuare e, conseguentemente, eliminare violazioni del modello e, nei casi più gravi, perpetrazione di reati” (Trib. Milano, 9/11/2004; 20/9/2004, 28/10/2004 e Tribunale di Bari ord. 18/4/2005).
Tale giurisprudenza segue la scia dell’esperienza statunitense, secondo cui l’apparato sanzionatorio “interno” all’ente rappresenta il punto di forza a "compliance program" with a view to a "partial privatization of the administration of criminal justice" and, therefore, the introduction and / or 'implementation of a disciplinary system "ad hoc" is becoming a major organizational models, complementing the "minimum content". D. The
lgs. No 231/2001, however, offers no indication as to the specific characteristics of the disciplinary system, the interpreter so that it is the systematic reconstruction of the character and content of that system.
Particular attention must be given to one of the structural features of the organizational models that you want give a true fitness to perform the functions which they are intended, namely that of effectiveness, is the quality that is in practice to develop the model of decision making and control mechanisms that reduce significantly the area of \u200b\u200bliability risk . This capability in reference to the disciplinary system should be guaranteed by control systems capable of identifying transactions that possess abnormal characteristics, such as report conducted within the area of \u200b\u200brisk and tools for timely intervention in case of detection of such anomalies.
In this context, the effectiveness of an organizational model must be regarded as function of the efficiency of the means to identify "symptoms of abuse", in other words, the disciplinary system required by Legislative Decree 231/2001 must be directed to sanction, beyond the facts constituting the offense, also led to a rule prodromal Committee of the same or another offense (even in hindsight that the first plus the second, being cautious view of organizational models to act sull'ipotizzato mechanism of production of the event preventing the occurrence of damaging events to the event that prodromal represent "events in" the expiration of the foundation for achieving causal typically provided by an abstract event a criminal case).
the character of the capability of disciplined system, they add, therefore, that its independence from the cc.dd. "Penal precept of reference" (in the sense that the system must be designed to penalize behavior that is not even rise to criminal sanctions or even merely irregular).
The Court of Bari, with the order of 18/4/2005, it was careful to specify that the internal disciplinary system of sanctions to be effective, must punish the violator of the organization, regardless of whether the breach is by resulted in the commission of a crime.
For example, should be prevented also conducted in the field of tax fraud or false comunicazioni sociali, ancorché non (ancora) previste (frode fiscale) tra i presupposti della responsabilità dell’ente o non punibili (false comunicazioni sociali) per mancato raggiungimento delle ”soglie quantitative”, in quanto operazioni idonee a creare disponibilità extracontabili e quindi occasione di condotte corruttive).
In tema di reati contro la P.A., sarà espressione di efficacia dei meccanismi di controllo l’idoneità di un modello a individuare le anomalie tipiche di un procedimento amministrativo oggetto di corruzione (l’esperienza giudiziaria ha evidenziato come siano, spesso, associati a condotte corruttive bandi di gara che, dal momento della loro pubblicazione, prevedano un termine molto ristretto per la presentazione di offerte che magari richiedano delle progettualità complesse. Similmente, l’annotazione di fatture relative a operazioni inesistenti o comunque operazioni idonee a creare disponibilità extracontabili – anche se per valori inferiori alle soglie richieste dagli artt. 2621 e 2622 del codice civile – sono sintomi di possibili condotte corruttive, da considerare in un’area di rischio, ancorché tali condotte non siano autonomamente perseguibili.
Da un punto di vista generale, può sostenersi che l’idoneità di un apparato sanzionatorio “interno” (adeguato sistema disciplinare) a evitare (o ridurre significativamente) il rischio di verificazione crime depends on its ability to be active in the presence of red flags, which normally are linked crimes, and in this regard, it has failed to recognize the role that can be played by the management of services, with the possibility of developing automated models of preventive controls.
Within the company, certain unlawful conduct but not criminal (or administrative) sanctions or even merely irregular preparatory phases of the offense may be relevant. Otherwise, the disciplinary system would be an unnecessary "duplication" of the leading precepts of criminal reference, disregarding the requirement that the specific duration.
The conduct in prodromal not necessarily be ascribed to the same subject the offender and, in their consideration, not necessarily integrate serious irregularities: an attacker, in effect, as well as procure it may take the opportunity offered by the negligence of others unknowingly and this may be too trivial , or, conversely, a more serious breach might have no criminal outcomes because thankfully nobody took advantage. This explains the disciplinary systems under the d. Decree 231, despite the seriousness of reference, however peacefully worthy of expulsion sanctions, well can and should also cover sanctions conservative. The point is scarcely considered the doctrine and guidelines are: fleeting references merely incidental take as a premise for a different argument, as a kind of obiter dictum, that minor violations, such violations of the procedural requirements of the model, should be accompanied by sanctions conservative (ie other than dismissal), to allow a reaction to the deficiencies that were considered severe enough to result in termination of the relationship. The Constitutional Court ruled that the exercise of disciplinary power in the conduct of any kind of paid employment or self-employed or professional association must comply with the principle of proportion is a direct expression of the general reasonableness of fees (Article 3 of the Constitution) combined with the protection of labor and the dignity of the worker (Art. 4 and 35 of the Constitution) and implies that the power to bring forth in a manner consistent with the fact charge, for the purpose of it, if deemed to exist, the penalty to be imposed (Constitutional Court 29/5/1995 No 220 and also Cass. 3/4/2003 No 5213).
then apply all the principles, respectively, art. 2106 cc and in the first paragraph of art. 7 of the Statute of Workers (ln 20/5/70 n. 300), which is specifically intended for employment but who rises to the rank of the fundamental principles of constitutional rule (the adversarial principle of immutability of the dispute, the timeliness of the complaint etc..) valid whenever it constitutes a relationship of domination in which a person may, by its unilateral act, have adverse consequences in the sphere of other persons by reason of negligence or guilty of the latter (Cass. 21 / 4 / 2005 No 8303).
The penalty system must be in writing and properly disclosed, in one with the organizational model, using an accurate and comprehensive information and training of recipients, in spite of the requirements of the models is provided for the 'appropriate training and information for staff on relevant aspects in order to enforce the law in pursuit of the organization "(as Grosso was instead provided in the Project), the guidelines of professional associations (eg ABI, Confindustria), however, provide information and training of the recipients as "two important requirements of the model for its proper functioning," adding, in particular, that its disciplinary systems "should be specifically included in the company's disciplinary rules if any declared or otherwise formally binding on all employees (eg through a formal internal circular or a statement), and exposed, as provided by art. 7, paragraph I, of Law 300 of 1970 ("Workers' Statute") and in this regard have been suggested in the pratica oltre all’affissione in luogo accessibile a tutti, la consegna di una copia del modello includente il sistema disciplinare da far firmare per ricevuta e presa visione, nonché l’organizzazione di corsi diretti a diffonderne il contenuto; si ritiene che, come tralatiziamente affermato dalla giurisprudenza giuslavoristica, la sanzionabilità di quei fatti il cui divieto risiede nella coscienza sociale quale “minimum etico”, riconoscibili come illeciti senza necessità di specifica previsione, in particolare se contrari a norme di rilevanza penale, sarebbe comunque salva, anche in caso di mancata affissione e/o divulgazione (giurisprudenza giuslavoristica relativa a sanzioni espulsive e conservative).
Il sistema disciplinary sanction should be harmonious and compatible with the rules and laws that govern the contractual relationship with each of the entertained by the subjects covered by the model, particularly as regards the type of penalties and its proceedings to establish and impose (requirement of compatibility).
should not be "vocis flatus, but characterized by concrete measures, such as to make it efficient (the eligibility requirement), which is manifested and fitness is measured primarily in terms of preventive, a preventive function that, with regard to intentional crimes is indirect and mediated (such as the willful misconduct is not preventable, so much so that the legislature charged with the fraudulent avoidance hypothesis of organizational models (Article 6 paragraph beds. c), which can be prevented is an opportunity, even remotely, in which case the deliberate thrive) while intentional crimes is directed.
Regarding the disciplinary systems put in charge of the organizational models (Article 6 of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001) regarding the persons who are representatives, directors and senior management of the disciplinary system should be manned by a specific entity body with independent powers of initiative and control, with the task, inter alia, to monitor compliance of the models (art. 6, comma I, lett.b), il che si sostanzia nella verifica della coerenza tra i comportamenti concreti e il modello istituito.
L’organismo di vigilanza pur non disponendo, salvo apposita delega aggiuntiva, di poteri disciplinari o sanzionatori diretti, avrà il potere di “promozione” dell’esercizio del potere disciplinare da parte dell’organo statutariamente competente (in dottrina è stata ipotizzata una previsione statutaria che conferisca all’Organismo di vigilanza il diritto-dovere non solo di partecipare all’assemblea dei soci, ma anche di chiederne la convocazione per la segnalazione e la deliberazione su questioni rientranti nelle proprie funzioni di vigilanza), ovvero da parte di organo Collegiate ad hoc, appointed by the shareholders, consisting of persons of recognized morality and independence.
Applying the foregoing principles to the "top" (Article 5, paragraph I, letter a), we analyze the individual figures:
a) Directors
first problem to solve has been identified in the fact that the d. lgs. 231/2001 requires the inclusion of a disciplinary system to sanction non-compliance of the model, regardless of possible interference between this system and the penalties provided for in the typical corporate law: the lifting of responsibility and action.
This is not the place to deepen relationships between action and action for the waiver of liability and the question whether, in the srl il diritto di chiedere la revoca cautelare degli amministratori possa essere esercitato in via autonoma o debba essere, necessariamente, esercitato con l’azione di responsabilità.
Qui ricordiamo solo che con l’azione di responsabilità si tende a ottenere il risarcimento del danno e con quella di revoca si vuol porre termine alla relazione tra società e amministratore.
Il problema, in realtà, più che di interferenze è di integrazione, in effetti:
per quanto attiene all’azione di responsabilità, deve escludersi che essa sia riconducibile al novero delle sanzioni disciplinari dei modelli organizzativi, sia perché le sanzioni disciplinari non rivestono funzione risarcitoria, sia perché molte violazioni degli obblighi degli amministratori, pur preludendo a (o integrando i) reati di cui agli artt. 24 e ss. d. lgs. 231, non determinano direttamente alcun danno né alla società né ai terzi e, talvolta, anzi determinano vantaggi alla società. Va piuttosto rilevato che l’azione di responsabilità può riguardare i modelli sotto diverso profilo: in effetti, l’adozione dei modelli, pur rappresentando pacificamente (almeno al momento) solo un onere sul piano penalistico, rappresenta invece un vero e proprio obbligo dal lato civilistico, ex art. 2381, terzo e quinto comma c.c., che impongono al CDA e agli organi delegati, rispettivamente, di valutare e curare un adeguato “assetto organizzativo, administrative and accounting structure of society ", in relation to the" nature and size of "means that, inevitably, includes the adoption of a suitable model of organization, depending on the nature and size of the organization and the type of business carried out (Article 6, paragraph 1 and 7, paragraph III). In other words, the model could also include a model of corporate governance and represent the exact performance of any obligation of proper management of the company, as a condition of civil liability of directors (in case of failure to implement the model), so the administrator who has responsibility direct and immediate in illegality well can still answer a civil penalty for failing to put in place a suitable model;
concerning the revocation action, while recognizing the similarity of functions with disciplinary measures, it should be noted that a disciplinary system and harmonic complete and respect the principle of proportionality, can not stop only in the expulsion penalty for withdrawal, which seems really excessive when imposed for a mere "oversight", which has remained free of any criminal outcome.
It follows that, at least against directors (and managers of top management) the problem of identifying the type of penalties and their imposition process per il sistema disciplinare dei modelli organizzativi non può essere risolto tramite il semplicistico rinvio alle sanzioni previste per ciascun tipo di rapporto, come è invece avvenuto in molti modelli organizzativi.
Al contrario, occorre integrare lo strumento tipico del diritto societario con la diretta previsione di una sequenza di sanzioni “ad hoc”, adeguatamente articolata a seconda della gravità della violazione.
La materia è ancora da esplorare, sebbene esperienze disciplinari appartenenti ad altri settori regolamentati potrebbero essere suscettibili di proposizione nel campo specifico (si fa riferimento all’istituto della sospensione conosciuto nell’ambito del diritto bancario e specificamente disciplinato Bank of Italy, with its own instructions).
ANCE is suggested in the organizational model to predict the "formal request in writing that is challenging the breach of the requirements of the model", "suspension from office and remuneration for a period of between one and six months for particularly severe violations, repeated or multiple, the proposal or decision to withdraw from office, in case of an exceptionally serious violations "and" mechanisms of automatic disqualification from office the occurrence of a cause that affects the integrity requirements established statutory or professional and related also non-compliant behavior to the model. "
Il secondo nodo interpretativo in materia di sistemi sanzionatori per gli amministratori è stato ravvisato nell’apparente difficoltà, se non impossibilità, di ricorrere agli ordinari strumenti di promulgazione della normativa disciplinare, tradizionalmente concepiti e collaudati in specifico riferimento al rapporto di lavoro subordinato: difficoltà a fronte della quale “l’unica soluzione percorribile è apparsa quella di esplicitare nel contratto individuale gli inadempimenti ritenuti rilevanti e le corrispettive “pene private aziendali”, ricorrendo al regime delle sanzioni di diritto comune e innanzitutto agli articoli 1382 e ss. c.c. in materia di clausola penale.
Tale opzione – anche a prescindere from the practical problems of implementation, particularly for ongoing relationships - does not seem acceptable because:
a) the disciplinary systems of which we speak have their source directly in art. 6, paragraph 2, letter e) of Legislative Decree 231/01, which makes no mention of the need for further improvement contract; remember, in this regard, that the same art. 7 of the Statute of Workers, has been established and interpreted in the sense of recognition, original title, the power to unilaterally drawing up the code and to apply disciplinary sanctions in the absence of adequate collective bargaining, while it is entirely overcome the view which in the absence of regulatory contractual disciplinary power is not exercised;
b) disciplinary sanctions, because of their nature and function are based on the general rules of contractual relationships and are not comparable to the penalties provided for in art. 1382 cc
From the point of view, one can pose the problem of the instrument more adapted for promulgating disciplinary sanctions against directors, or at least those that affect, in whole or in part, on their "status" on their corporate or managerial capacity : about - being unique, art. 2328 cc, with the Constitution as an indication of the "powers of the directors" and "operation della società” – appare preferibile la tesi dell’implementazione a livello statutario. In dottrina si è indicata la soluzione di una previsione statutaria che conferisca all’organismo di vigilanza il diritto-dovere non solo di partecipare all’assemblea dei soci, ma anche di chiederne la convocazione per la segnalazione e la deliberazione su questioni rientranti nelle proprie funzioni di viglilanza, tra le quali rientra la promozione dell’azione disciplinare nei confronti degli amministratori.
c)I DIRETTORI
In relazione a tale figura di lavoratori subordinati (ma pur sempre “apicali”, nel senso di cui all’art. 5, comma 1 lettera a) del d. lgs. n. 231/2001), si può probabilmente said that Article. 6, paragraph 2, letter e) of Legislative lgs. (Introducing a disciplinary system "ad hoc" even against those top management) contributed to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court revirement United Sections (Case No. 7880 of 03.30.2007) which - by solving a conflict arose between judicial simple sections - stated that the protection provided by art. 7 of the Workers' Statute shall apply to officers, without distinction of any kind (as it was instead suggested by the Court of Cassation in the United Sections of 29.05.1995 No. 6041) between managers' top managers' and executives' average ' or "minor" distinction more "Sociological" than legal, and in any case, does not respect constitutional principles to protect workers.
Before the Judgement of 03/30/2007, indeed, there is the presence in our legal system, a sharp contrast between the legal interpretation (that, in the judgments of the United Sections of 29.05.1995 No 6041, that on the basis of evidence that most sociological law, sees an incompatibility between ontological relationship management, at least in relation to top executives and managers responsible - and consequent collateral - disciplinary) and legislative data (the art. 6, second paragraph, e) of d. lgs. No 231/2001), which conversely requires l’introduzione di un sistema disciplinare anche nei confronti dei direttori (considerati come “apicali”).
In seguito al sopra accennato revirement non sussistono, ormai, più dubbi nell’affermare che i direttori di cui all’art. 5, comma 1 lettera a) del d. lgs. n. 231/2001 debbono, a fortiori nell’ambito applicativo del decreto n. 231/2001, essere assoggettati a un sistema disciplinare, comprensivo di sanzioni conservative e assistito dalle fondamentali garanzie del contraddittorio.
Del resto, prima dell’emanazione della più volte menzionata sentenza, i modelli organizzativi più “garantisti” (a esempio quello elaborato dalla “Adecco”, approvato by the Board of Directors on 24/11/2006) prescribed to proceed in accordance with the requirements of Art. 7 of the Statute of Workers in the event of violations carried out by managers.
With regard to persons under the direction or supervision of "top" of which art. 5, paragraph 1, letter b) of d. lgs. No 231/2001, ie the employee disciplinary system (which must be adopted by the Board of Directors), part of the model must be prepared in accordance with Articles. 2118 and 2119 of the Civil Code of Law 300 of 1970 ("Workers' Statute") and the National Collective Bargaining Agreement in force and shall contain the rules that identify and govern the entire system of the institution intends to impose sanctions for non-compliance of the measures provided for in the corporate organizational procedures and code of conduct in order to identify and define the criteria and penalties commensurate them.
The disciplinary system that should not replace the sanctions imposed by their respective Negotiable but must condemn and punish only conduct disloyal to the provisions of the model and violations of company operating procedures implemented by different actors.
For those who are bound by an employment entity of type person (including, therefore, not only for managers and executives, employees and workers), the disciplinary proceedings can only be one already covered by the Workers' Statute and the CCNL force.
However, in each case to provide the necessary involvement of the Compliance Committee in the process of assessment of offenses and the subsequent imposition of sanctions.
can not therefore be filed disciplinary proceedings and imposed a disciplinary measure without prior notice and opinion of the Compliance Committee, even where the proposal for opening of disciplinary proceedings is from the body itself.
With regard to consultants, employees, agents, distributors, dealers sales agents, project workers (These individuals under the supervision of the administrative institution) and, in general, third parties who have a relationship with the Board, should be included in letters of appointment, agreements and contracts termination clauses that specifically provides for the resolution of ratio in case of failure to comply with the code of ethics or organizational procedures developed in the organizational model. The termination clause should be subject to the dual signature art. 1341 et seq. Civil Code. Mr. Salvatore Antonio
0 comments:
Post a Comment