STRAINING AND WORK-RELATED STRESS: THE DECISIVE ROLE OF SPECIFIC CONTEXT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF STRESSORS.

Straining (from the English to strain: to put under pressure) refers to a situation of forced stress in the workplace, characterized by hostile and discriminatory actions, which, unlike mobbing, do not need to be repeated over time, as well as being able to integrate straining even a single particularly serious episode that causes a lasting and significant deterioration in the employee's working conditions.

Particularly stressful work situations, such as, for example, isolation and professional de-qualification that engender in the victim a form of work pressure that exceeds the physiological limits inherent in the performance of professional activity and the usual hierarchical-organizational relations, are relevant to the configuration of the case.

The phenomenon of straining thus takes the form of a pathology of the employment relationship that lies somewhere between physiological occupational stress and the more intense and systematic phenomenon of mobbing.

Supreme Court ruling No. 12518/2025 is important both in ritual -declaring with it the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge and not the administrative one as had been affirmed in the second instance- as well as on the merits in that it specifies the prerequisites, allegations and evidence necessary for the case to be established.

This case involved an employee who complained of straining, believing that his employer had unlawfully deprived him of the status of an official by placing him in a competitive position.The lower courts had dismissed the appeal, declaring lack of jurisdiction

According to the Court of Appeals, no intentional stressful conduct capable of constituting straining was discernible in this case, neither in terms of its characteristics nor its severity or personal/professional impact.

The worker appealed to the Supreme Court, articulating three grounds: the first two concerning the lack of jurisdiction and the complaint of denial of justice. The Supreme Court upheld both grounds, recalling the well-established principle of the United Sections (Cass. No. 7305/2017), according to which jurisdiction lies with the ordinary courts although it is in species of public employment.

As for the third ground, pertaining to the straining claim, the court found that the Court of Appeals was correct in its assessment, which had ruled out the existence of the phenomenon.Indeed, straining only occurs when there is consciously implemented stressogenic behavior against the employee, even if isolated, or when the employer is aware of a work environment that is detrimental to the health of workers.

In the present case, the constituent elements for the configuration of the case of straining are lacking, which are substantiated by:

1) Stressful conduct and harassing intent of the employer that contribute to the creation of a harmful work environment. Such as, for example, assignment of inferior tasks, reduction of workload, exposure to constant stress;

2) Negative effects on the employee's health i.e. worsening of the employee's mental and physical condition;

3) The causal link between the conduct and the injury suffered by the worker;

In conclusion for the purposes of whether or not straining can be configured, it is not enough to generically assume that one is subjected to stressors in the workplace, but it is necessary that these factors are determinant and -calculated in the specific case- result in serious harm to the employee.

The burden of proof is on the employee, who must prove all the individual factual elements that characterize the vexatious conduct, such as the breach and the causal link between it and the damage suffered. On the other hand, it is up to the employer to prove the absence of fault by demonstrating that the conduct adopted complies with the obligation of protection provided by Article 2087 of the Civil Code, that it is not accompanied by a persecutory or discriminatory intent, or that the non-performance was due to a cause not attributable to him.

Authors: Avv. Gianfilippo Chiricozzi e Alessia Donnarumma