When it is legitimate to transfer the worker?

It ‘granted to the employer broad discretion in arranging individual transfers of workers, provided that they are carried out by a production unit to another production unit, within the same company and are motivated by proof of technical, organizational and production.

The legality of the transfer is limited to ascertaining the existence of proof of technical, organizational and production required by law, while it is the sole employer of choice made between different organizational solutions adopted (see Cass. N. 27 / 01). 
In general, the law identifies the following additional limitations with respect to the legal ones: the reasons for the transfer must exist at the time when this is decided and not at a later time (see Cass. N.1203/89) the reasons for the transfer must be objective and can not be determined by subjective evaluations of the employer (see Cass. n. 5320/06), there must be a causal relationship between reasons and the need to transfer the worker (Pret. Milan 21/10/1982), the transfer must be aimed at improving the functioning of the company and the employee must derive from the particular skills of the latter to fill the new job (Court of Cassation no. 3065/76). 
Other limitations can then be included in collective agreements. The transfer that meets all the above requirements is certainly legitimate and the worker can not resist them. In case of refusal by the employee, but not based on valid reasons, the employer may have legitimate dismissal for just cause subjective.
It 's the case of a recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, sez. Work, which confirmed and enriched these principles. In its judgment no. 20614 of 22/11/12, in fact, the Supreme Court considered the legitimate dismissal of an employee who had refused to transfer ordinatogli by the company, aimed at increasing the productivity of its plant.
The Court emphasized that the employer's power to determine the place of work performance and to transfer the employee to a production unit to another may be exercised as long as there are technical, organizational and production for the company, except that, for disposal collective agreement or individual, non-existent at the moment, it is established   that the performance of work should be done in a certain place.
In this case the judges were able to ascertain that it really was kind to society the need to carry out a production increase at the seat where he had been ordered the transfer of the worker, and indeed, following the dismissal of quest ' Finally, the same company had failed to hire another worker, as evidenced through the payroll. 
For this reason ends up being indecisive and opposed the alleged circumstances of the reduction of the total workforce of the company at certain times. 
The Court, therefore, has not merely applied those principles, we talked about a while ago, under which the transfer is always lawful and