The essay analyses the arguments of Judgment no. 194/2018, by highlighting the elements that allow to understand the ruling as a corrective, rather than destructive, intervention of the pro-tection system against the unjustified dismissal introduced by art. 3.1, Legislative Decree no. 23/2015.
Keywords: Economic damage; Indemnity; Dissuasive function; Formal and procedural flaws; Offer of conciliation; Collective dismissal; Dismissal in small enterprises.