Key facts of the case - Mr G.T. has worked for twenty-five years as a receptionist in the mother house of a religious institute which, in addition to providing stable residence to persons belonging to the religious community, also offers temporary stay, on payment of a fee, for religious and lay guests. This secondary activity is not occasional but has organisational necessities similar to those of a hotel and requires dedicated staff. G.T.’s activities were related primarily to these tasks.
Mr G.T. requested the remuneration determined by the national collective contract for hotel companies’ employees.
The court of first instance, on the basis of the main case law orientation, rejected his request, equalizing the general house to a family community and stating that he was entitled to the wage set by the national collective contract for domestic workers.
The Court of Appeal of Rome reformed the first instance decision and condemned the religious institute to pay differentials, thirteenth month’s and severance pay (as well as accessories of the law) related to the employment relationship occurred between the parties from 1 June 1963 to 31 March 1998.

Main reasoning of the Court - The Supreme Civil Court confirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It stated that the spiritual or altruistic aim of an organisation does not prejudge the entrepreneurial nature of some services when they are provided for a fee corresponding to their costs. The entrepreneurial nature of a service entirely depends on how the activity is performed and is not affected by the nature of the organisation.
The management of a hotel, even if conducted by a religious organisation, has to be identified as a business, since it is organised for the production and exchange of a service. No matter if the profits are then allocated to the institutional (religious) goals of the organisation. In such cases the collateral activity is considered non-business only if it is entirely conducted for free.
Since the applicant’s functions were primarily directed to the hotel business, his salary should be benchmarked to the national contract for employees of the hotel companies, instead of national contract for domestic workers.

See the decision (in Italian): 2011-08-19 - Court of cassation, n. 17399.