First of all the author calls the attention to Massimo D’Antona’s concept of the institutional models comprising in the strike in essential services bill (then 146/1990 Act) and highlights D’Antona’s mistrust with reference to the "institutionalisation of collective autonomy processes". Thanks to those processes, the concrete restrictions on the right to strike are produced by collective bargaining, but afterwards they become legal sanctioned rules. The author criticises D’Antona’s thesis, according to which the neoMario Rusciano institutional model would imply the integration of trade union system into legal order and disavows the multi-order perspective. Finally, the author deals with three topics discussed by D’Antona: the role reserved to the Acts of Parliament in article 40 of the Constitution; trade union representation; individuals as the holders of the right to strike.
Keywords: Strike; Essential services; Law; Collettive agreements; D’Antona; Istitutionalism