providing the service, whether intellectual or manual, is one of the entities concerned. Classification is problematic in each of the cases, because, within the range of scenarios, these agreements must differ from subordinate employment, the plausible alternative for achieving comparable organisational outcomes, albeit with the application of the employer’s powers. The issue at stake is the extent of the employment relationship (see App. Torino 5 November 2020, in Onelegale, 2020; Trib. Modena 21 July 2020, ibid., 2020; Trib. Nocera inferiore 20 April 2010, in Onelegale, 2010), as case law states that “the bond of subordination does not inherently require the continuous obligation for the worker to remain at the employer’s disposal. The sporadic and occasional nature of the services provided by a waiter at a restaurant, such as offering his labour (which the business can utilise), is not sufficient to classify the relationship as self - employed. Instead, the factors that matter include the absence of economic risk, adherence to a set work schedule, and integration into an organisation belonging to others, particularly with regard to coordination with other workers” (see Cass. 7 January 2009, n. 58, in Giur. it. rep., 2009). In actual fact, “the characteristics of subordination do not include the worker’s obligation of permanence over the course of time” (see V. Cass. 10 July 1999, n. 7304, in Giur. it. rep., 1999). In an unusual case, it was argued that, “for the purposes of making a distinction between subordinate and self - employed work, ascertainment of the worker’s acceptance of the contractual obligation to put his energies at the disposal of the employer and adopt them with continuity, loyalty and diligence, proves decisive depending on the general instructions given, and on the plans for which the work is intended (the case in point ruled out the subordination of a worker who, as part of a group of young people working evening shifts as servers in a restaurant, was directed to the establishment according to daily and weekly shifts organised by the group itself, according to its needs, without any obligation to work as a table server)” (see Cass. 26 February 2002, n. 2842, in Giur. it. rep., 2002). Regardless of this unusual case, for the most part the work of table servers and, even more so, of those working in kitchens is classified as subordination. If the short duration of services in gastronomic and hospitality businesses does not prevent the relationship from being classified as subordinate, when the employee is included in the company organisation, as is mostly the case, the Italian legal system establishes two typical systems aimed at allowing short - term work, especially in public establishments, where demand is concentrated on 204 ENRICO GRAGNOLI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==