26/11/2020 Employment Case Law Conference for 2019-2020 12th Annual Conference 1 Maltese Cases - Part 1 2 1
26/11/2020 (11 th th Davis Davison vs De De La La Rue Rue Curr Currency & & Sec Securit ity Pri rint (C (CoA oA) (11 Oct October 2019) 4 th June 2012 - Industrial Tribunal 4 th June 2012 - Industrial Tribunal 27 th April 2016 - Court of Appeal 27 th April 2016 - Court of Appeal 15 th December 2016 - Industrial Tribunal 15 th December 2016 - Industrial Tribunal 23 rd April 2018 - Court of Appeal 23 rd April 2018 - Court of Appeal 11 th October 2019 - Industrial Tribunal 11 th October 2019 - Industrial Tribunal 3 Davis Davison vs De De La La Rue Rue Curr Currency & & Sec Securit ity Pri rint (C (CoA oA) (11 (11 th th Oct October 2019) He took a small tube of He took a small tube of glue, put it in his pocket, glue, put it in his pocket, and continued his rounds and continued his rounds A company official A company official Davison took a Davison took a spotted the bright spotted the bright broken plug to work broken plug to work bottle through his bottle through his to fix during his break to fix during his break breast-pocket breast-pocket THEFT THEFT & & DISMISSAL DISMISSAL 4 2
26/11/2020 (11 th th Davis Davison vs De De La La Rue Rue Curr Currency & & Sec Securit ity Pri rint (C (CoA oA) (11 Oct October 2019) The he first IT de decis isio ion Davison had been employed for 32 years with a clean record fou ound tha hat the di dism smissal al was jus ustif tifie ied. The he CoA oA revoked the he de decis isio ion and nd ordered the he IT to to award His role was to prevent others from com compen ensation n for or acting as he did & the company’s unju unjust t di dism smissal. al. high security nature required rigid compliance with rules. 5 Davis Davison vs De De La La Rue Rue Curr Currency & & Sec Securit ity Pri rint (C (CoA oA) (11 (11 th th Oct October 2019) CoA agreed and pointed IT awarded the plaintiff out that Davison had €18,000 as claimed around €90,000 compensation (backed by evidence) Davison appealed, claiming that the amount was meted out without justification 6 3
26/11/2020 (11 th th Davis Davison vs De De La La Rue Rue Curr Currency & & Sec Securit ity Pri rint (C (CoA oA) (11 Oct October 2019) The IT heard The CoA rejected evidence again the appeal and awarded over €90,000 The employer appealed, claiming that the IT had been too mathematical in the wake of the COA order 7 th De (4 th Mifsud vs FIM Mif FIMBANK K plc (I (IT) T) (4 December 2019) Plaintiff starting working on reduced hours (family reasons) Management Plaintiff asked her to refused and gradually resigned return to immediately regular hours 8 4
26/11/2020 th De (4 th Mif Mifsud vs FIM FIMBANK K plc (I (IT) T) (4 December 2019) 9 th De (4 th Mif Mifsud vs FIM FIMBANK K plc (I (IT) T) (4 December 2019) While on The reduced reduced hours, hours Mifsud was still arrangement contractually a was temporary full-time and renewable employee annually 10 5
26/11/2020 th De (4 th Mif Mifsud vs FIM FIMBANK K plc (I (IT) T) (4 December 2019) Employer had attempted to help find solutions Mifsud had been too hasty in her decision to resign Case was dismissed 11 th Jul (9 th Caru Caruana vs GCS GCS Ac Accountin ting Ltd (I (IT) T) (9 July 2020) Caruana was She was dismissed on pregnant probation She had not submitted a She claimed medical her dismissal certificate re was unfair pregnancy 12 6
26/11/2020 th Jul (9 th Caru Caruana vs GCS GCS Ac Accountin ting Ltd (I (IT) T) (9 July 2020) GCS’s Poor defence performance Conflict of interest – Caruana’s partner passed clients to GCS 13 th Jul (9 th Caruana vs GCS Caru GCS Ac Accountin ting Ltd (I (IT) T) (9 July 2020) The Industrial Tribunal’s considerations: Poor Performance • Errors were not grave enough to warrant dismissal Conflict of Interest • Caruana’s boyfriend and third party used to pass on work • to GCS, but had a falling out. The third party wrote to GCS, urging them to fire Caruana and threatening to otherwise stop passing on clients to the company. Caruana was shown this letter during her termination meeting. 14 7
26/11/2020 th Jul (9 th Caru Caruana vs GCS GCS Ac Accountin ting Ltd (I (IT) T) (9 July 2020) Reason was clearly based on business coercion Violation of Dismissal was Maternity unjustified Regulations €10,000 compensation 15 Cam Camil ille leri ri vs MIA MIA & & G4 G4S S – (IT T - Pre reli limin inary ry Dec Decis isio ion) (25 (25 th h February ry 2020) MIA terminated contract with G4s Employee of G4S two months later MIA asked for the employee to be Supplied to MIA as substituted and he fire fighter was ‘returned’ to G4S 16 8
26/11/2020 (25 th h Cam Camil ille leri ri vs MIA MIA & & G4 G4S S – (IT T - Pre reli limin inary ry Dec Decis isio ion) (25 February ry 2020) One day later MIA employed all other G4S workers who were fire fighters directly to do the same work, excluding Camilleri Camilleri claimed: (a) he had been framed; (b) he should have been offered to return to MIA with the rest (TUPE?) and (c) MIA was the entity that ordered his ‘dismissal’ and should be responsible for their actions Tribunal didn’t go into the TUPE merits at all but stated that this was a temp. agency worker and that MIA control did not create a legal relationship with Camilleri as employer – ergo, MIA were let off the hook 17 Azzopard Az rdi i vs Ma Mapfre MS MSV Li Life plc (C (Cou ourt of of Ma Magis istr trates) (10 th De (10 December 2019) Gives notice Employee of her works 2017 resignation in in full January 2018 Company Effectively bonus for resigns in 2017 is March 2018 payable in March 2018 18 9
26/11/2020 Az Azzopard rdi i vs Ma Mapfre MS MSV Li Life plc (C (Cou ourt of of Ma Magis istr trates) (10 (10 th De December 2019) Company bonus What if Employee was policy stated there was duly informed of that as soon as bonus and no clause?? one hands in reminded upon notice bonus resignation rights are lost Employee claimed its unfair and such Court upheld clauses in policy clause should not be enforceable 19 Carb Carbone vs Ga Gamm mma Cap Capit ital l Ma Mark rkets (C (Civil il Cou Court) (6 (6 th h Oct October 2020) Carbone is chosen to be employed as fund manager for Gamma Due to MFSA regulatory constraints, Carbone has to be approved before he starts the employment. No contract of employment is signed at this point but Company promises to file PQ for approval Parties enter into a consultancy agreement in the meantime and Carbone argues he passes on some clients and some knowhow… For various reasons, company did not submit the PQ and after a while relationship went sour…. 20 10
26/11/2020 (6 th h Carb Carbone vs Ga Gamm mma Cap Capit ital l Ma Mark rkets (C (Civil il Cou Court) (6 Oct October 2020) 21 Carb Carbone vs Ga Gamm mma Cap Capit ital l Ma Mark rkets (C (Civil il Cou Court) (6 (6 th h October 2020) Oct Rent; 750K Office-related costs; Damages suffered due to change from employment to consultancy; Fees in pursuance of his application with the MFSA; Relocation fees, since he had to move to Malta; Management fees; Pecuniary and moral damages 22 11
26/11/2020 Carb arbone vs s Gam Gamma Cap apital Ma Markets (Civi ivil Cou ourt) ) (6 th Oct October 20 2020 20) Court awarded….. €1,225 23 st Jul (21 st Azzopard Az rdi i vs. AP APS S Ba Bank Ltd (I (IT) T) (21 July 2020) Azzopardi was employed with APS on a definite He had invested money in contract as a Manager the MORE Supermarkets chain, which subsequently faced serious financial issues 24 12
26/11/2020 st Jul (21 st Az Azzopard rdi i vs. AP APS S Ba Bank Ltd (I (IT) T) (21 July 2020) A court case on MORE Supermarket guarantees (bills of exchange) was opened APS found out about Azzopardi’s investment - the operating company was a client APS accused Azzopardi of loaning money to a client and asked him to resign 25 st Jul (21 st Az Azzopard rdi i vs. AP APS S Ba Bank Ltd (I (IT) T) (21 July 2020) APS’ claim that FT Azzopardi was contract employees did dismissed after IT found that APS did not fall under the MUBE refusing to resign not follow the proper CA was refuted as that disciplinary procedure would have been and ordered FT blatantly discriminatory penalty payment 26 13
26/11/2020 th February (28 th Mif Mifsud vs. AX AX Ho Hotel l Op Operatio ions (I (IT) T) (28 ry 2020) Lewd suggestions Lewd suggestions Constant Constant Indecent Indecent double-meaning double-meaning exposure exposure comments comments SEXUAL SEXUAL HARASSMENT HARASSMENT 27 th February (28 th Mif Mifsud vs. AX AX Ho Hotel l Op Operatio ions (I (IT) T) (28 ry 2020) Mifsud refuted One manager the claims, stating that one would regularly of the managers refer to one of disliked him Evidence on the receptionists indecent relations He claimed that as his ‘sunshine one of the between butt’ complainants management and actually harassed other members of him staff was also presented 28 14
Recommend
More recommend
