Abstract

It is also doubtful that Germany should be open to learning from experience of Italian jurisdiction. The demarcation line between the employment contract and a new category of collaboration introduced by the Jobs Act is still not clear. A dramatic example can be found in the recent Foodora case, mentioned above: Turin court seemed to use a too narrow definition of the new category of collaboration and therefore chose to exclude digital workers from labor law. It would be hardly surprising in the future for the legislature to amend the legislation in a way that will steer the courts in what it considers to be the right direction.

Moreover, the regulation of the so-called smart or agile work, instead of limiting the discretion enjoyed by the judiciary in classifying employment relations, could make judicial qualification more complicated. The Courts will continue to play a leading role in the process. However, despite all deficiencies, such as the lack of clarity on the criteria used to define smart-worker, it is significant that the legislator authorized individual agreement to play a very signi?cant role in determining how the work is to be performed, such as the identification of the place or places where the work is performed, the decision on the quantity and distribution of working hours, as well as on the modalities of the relative controls. In our opinion the centrality of the individual autonomy in these aspects cannot be stigmatized but can be seen as a useful effort to reflect the instances of flexibility, adaptability and individualization required by the new dimension of work and of the productive organization.