The Milan Labour Court ordered the Euro MP Ilaria Salis to pay more than EUR 300 000 in compensation to 2 colleagues dismissed for no good reason. A left-wing activist, known for defending tenants and disfellowshipped persons, was herself recognized as a lawbreaking employer.
Judgment of the Labour Section
The ruling was issued by a section of the work of the Milan tribunal, and its content was revealed by the Italian agency AdnKronos. The court took into account the claims of 2 erstwhile co-workers of the Euro MPs and judged for them a full of more than EUR 300 000. Significantly, the lawyers of the plaintiffs for a long time were incapable to effectively deliver the lawsuit, since at the authoritative address of Salis' check-in no 1 received it. The curious organization herself did not appear in a trial that was going on in the past.
Contracts for the remainder of the word of office
Both agreements were concluded for the duration of the European mandate, with a word of validity until mid-2029. The employees received a wage of nearly €3,000 a period and were active in task development, run preparation and events in Italy and abroad, as well as contacts with institutions and political advice. They both participated in the election success of Salis, who won the mandate in June 2024. The dismissal came a fewer months later, early in 2025, and without a announcement period.
From alliance to breakup
As a reason for the break-up, the policy itself indicated a failure of assurance and, as noted, a situation of individual and environmental incompatibility. 1 of his associates was immediately withdrawn, citing discontent with the effects of his work. In practice, it was a fast and ruthless mode, precisely as the leftist activist usually attributed to the hated “owners”. Out of the political alliance, a sharp conflict ended in the courtroom.
No Address Paradox
There's a bitter irony in this story. Salis became celebrated as a defender of the right to occupy another people's homes and for years she made the local issue her policy axis. However, it was the deficiency of a permanent, available address that made it hard to service her suit and indirectly contributed to the default judgment. The female who made the "gentlemen" a trademark was legally recognized as an employer who treated her own people in the way she branded herself. The ruling came at first instance, so formally the appeal way remains open.
Source: liberoquotidiano
