I am pleased to report an interesting ruling today from the Court of Busto Arsizio which rejected the appeal of the dismissal for just cause ordered by a company I assisted to an employee who had received money from a user.
The user and a neighbor of hers were heard as witnesses, but, while confirming the facts, they stated that the person who went to their house was not the worker present at the hearing.
The discussion, therefore, focused on the value of this last declaration, recalling the well-known debate in criminal jurisprudence on the limited evidentiary scope of the recognition (and, therefore, of the denial) of a person as it is linked to an intuitive pre-logical procedure and in any case dependent by psychological factors, as well as also highlighting the existence of a complaint by the worker against the witnesses and the convergence of all the other facts.
The Court of Busto Arsizio rejected the appeal, stating that it would have been normal if the witnesses had declared that they did not remember the physiognomy of the person, while it is not normal to exclude with certainty that the person was the appellant. This, according to the Court, is a clear sign of psychological pressure which excludes, on this point, the reliability of the witnesses and does not affect the remaining granitic evidentiary framework.