Law no. 106 of July 18, 2025, as is well known, concerns the protection of workers affected by oncological, chronic, and disabling diseases. It provides – in addition to 24 months of absence (unpaid and without figurative contributions, redeemable at the full expense of the interested party) for oncological, immunodepressive, chronic, and disabling pathologies in conjunction with possession of 75% certified disability – also the retention of the position for the requesting subjects.
At the beginning of the current school year, which is coming to an end (lessons have finished, only the oral exams of the final exam remain), situations had been reported of teachers who – despite being in conditions of certified pathologies and disability, as well as being holders of Law 104/92, in some cases without notice and without their consent – risked being assigned to another location, often more inconvenient and far from home and without any explanation, except for a possible reason of internal organization, at the discretion of the school principal.
The retention of the position and the service location appears – for these categories of workers that Law 106/2025 intends to protect – an incontestable right: so much so that these teachers are excluded from the institute rankings of those losing their positions. This applies both to holders of Law 104/92 ex art. 3 paragraph 3 but also to those who possess the requirements provided for by art. 3 paragraph 1 if accompanied by a disability greater than two-thirds, and this based on the regulatory provision of art. 21 of the same Law 104/1992, with all the protections provided, including exclusion from the internal ranking for identifying those losing their positions and the non-transferability of the subject.
Any changes of location ordered ex officio in ways that differ from art. 21/Law 104 could conflict with the spirit of Law 106 which – providing that the two years of absence for serious pathology are divisible – not only supports the retention of the job position but also of the workplace. The Court of Cassation – Labor Section – with ruling no. 29990/2019 established that assigning different locations without objective reasons may constitute a violation of the principle of equal treatment, especially if among the workers there are protected situations such as disability. In this regard, on September 10, 2025, a parliamentary question with written response was submitted by Honorable Serracchiani, Furfaro, Girelli, and Malavasi, to learn the orientation of the Ministries of Public Administration and Education and Merit regarding the issue of the coincidence between retention of the job position and retention of the service location.
To date, however – the entire school year has passed – it appears that these awaited responses have not been given to the questioning deputies: it follows that in view of the next school year the issue raised remains still without an indication regarding the problem brought to the attention of the Administration, at its highest levels. It should be considered that the long legislative process that led to the approval of Law 106/2025 was activated precisely with a bill filed by Honorable Serracchiani, for this reason widely entitled to present the question, hoping for a confirmation of the rationale of the legislative measure.
Since they are disabled, chronically ill, immunodepressed, and oncological patients, when Law 106 expresses itself for the retention of the job position over two divisible years of absence, it should refer to the broadest meaning of the term, which includes not the “position” in an abstract sense but also the actual workplace. Otherwise, a worker who needs periods that Law 106 recognizes for treatment risks – returning between one period and another – being “shuffled” to different locations.
To this parliamentary question, after nine months (equal to a school year and a pregnancy…) no answer has yet been given. It is hoped that it will arrive before the start of the next school year.
