We have many times discussed this matter and I am afraid we shall need to keep talking about this. The rules for the enforcement of the law pretend that migrant workers must have a nice house to regularly work here. Workers must give in a certificate that proves the suitability of lodgings, the certificate needs to tell how many people live in the house and that regional parameters are respected. This is fundamental to have residence contract issued. What’s really bad is that employers need to state that they verified that lodging is suitable to regional parameters. This needs to be stated when filling in residence contract’s form.
Some employees have already been dismissed. This especially happened in temp labour agencies that refuse to employ migrant workers because lodging suitability certificate is mandatory.
We’ve been signalled of these refusals and of dismissals as well.
Example
An association that works in Bolzano asked for our assistance. A Moroccan lady used to work as a janitor, she lives with her parents and with her four brothers in a flat suitable to five (not seven) residents. Her employer required the flat’s lease contract (which should prove that this lodging is suitable according to regional law parameters) but the flat came out to be too small. The lady’s employer had to dismiss the janitor, but he assured the girl that once her flat becomes suitable to law he will employ her back. We were asked what to do.
We answered that the rule according to which the employer had to dismiss the employee is set by the rules for the enforcement of the law. We believe that this rule is unlawful and we also believe that qualified magistrates should ask for it to be
revoked
since it is unlawful.
We also explained that residence contract and lodging suitability (that must be handed over each time employment is changed) are absurd, we believe it is unlawful and we hope that their Constitutional unlawfulness is set.
The Moroccan janitor should impugn her dismissal, she should send a registered letter, she should state that no just cause exists and that her dismissal is unlawful since there are no rules that provide for such kind of firing. The lady will impugn the dismissal and then she will appeal to Labour court in order to have dismissal cancelled.
This Moroccan lady works for a cleaning firm that most probably employs more than 15 workers. This is very important because according to law if dismissal is annulled by court, fired employee is given back his/her job – in case a firm employs more than 15 workers. A urgent appeal could be the solution to this Moroccan lady’s problems. The judge should be asked to whether the rules for the enforcement of the law are to be considered a correct interpretation of law. According to us immigration law is not being respected by actual rules for the enforcement of the law.
Immigration consolidated act (as changed by Bossi-Fini law) provides for that residence contract and lodging suitability are verified ONLY when workers come from abroad through flows decree quotas. Immigration law does not say that residence contract and lodging suitability are to be repeated each time regular migrants change employment or need to renew papers.
The rules for the enforcement of the law deny both employees and employers the chance of regularly working… and this happens only because migrants do not live in nice houses.
We really doubt that equal treatment principle is being respected among workers. Italian workers can live anywhere while foreign workers are denied equal opportunities.
We suggest to this lady to urgently appeal to Labour court, appeal should ask to be re-integrated to labour and to misapply the rule we are today discussing since it is unlawful.
We wish to grant our legal support to all the ones that wish to appeal against this rule.
We are launching a campaign against such dismissals, which are caused by a rule that is not safeguarding public order and which the same employers might not want to apply themselves.