weakness and subjection beyond the contractual chronological limits, as well as creating in the company (the former employer) a means of exploiting the choice made at the time of recruitment” (see Trib. Monza 9 September 2008, in Giur. it. rep., 2008). As a result, “it does not constitute unfair competition if the former employee transfers the technical knowledge, experience and even information relating to the enterprise from which he has come to a competitor, provided that it is not secret or confidential information and that, in any event, there is no systematic diverting of customers and imitation of initiatives” (see Trib. Turin 18 January 2007, in Giur. it. rep., 2007). In the case of gastronomic or hospitality firms, there are no known cases concerning the misappropriation of information; after all, the establishment is qualified by the premises in which it operates and confusion is not possible, all the more so if we are talking about medium or high - level services instead of activities intended for the public at large. Thus, the issue of competition is marginal, as is that of information preservation and secrecy on food preparation techniques and criteria. For the most part, the skills acquired in gastronomy and hospitality are those that belong to the worker’s professional background and constitute his “know – how”. Former employers cannot take any prohibitive protection measures as the information is not secret, but instead knowledge that makes up professional expertise. It is no coincidence that non - competition agreements for the period after the relationship has ended are not adopted in public establishments, even if they have a high standard and require a high level of expertise. A restaurant’s success is given by its overall package (food, beverages, service, characteristics of the dishes) and it is unrepeatable, if only because it is linked to the premises and the hallmark of the package it targets at customers. V. LIABILITY OF HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES Some rulings (see Cass. 12 May 2020, n. 8791, ord., in Variaz. temi dir. lav., site, 2020) have dealt with specific accidents in restaurants. Amongst others, the rulings have stated that “the employer is not liable towards an employee who, on going to the kitchen outside of working hours, drinks from an open bottle of mineral water on a shelf set apart without noticing the label indicating that it contained dishwasher soap. In fact, the damage is solely linked to the careless 207 HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES, GASTRONOMY AND LABOUR RELATIONS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==