Background information to the case
Our client, a local company, had employed an individual on a full-time employment contract, for an indefinite period. The employee was dismissed from employment for negligent behaviour at work. Furthermore, the employee at that time had failed to inform our client, the employer, regarding her pregnancy, even though she had claimed that she was willing to return to employment on a full-time basis post maternity leave.
Employment problem
During the employment, the employee did not conduct herself properly and eventually, following a meeting held at the company’s premises, the directors notified the employee that they were no longer willing to employ her. The employee refused to resign, and eventually she was served with a letter from Jobsplus regarding her termination from her place of work for disciplinary reasons. The applicant felt highly aggrieved by this decision, attesting that she always performed her work diligently. Accordingly, she filed an action in front of the Industrial Tribunal, and raised the argument that her termination was solely a consequence of her pregnancy and referred to both Article 36(14) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta) and Subsidiary Legislation 452.9, ‘Protection of Maternity (Employment) Regulations’. This, even though our client was never made aware of her pregnancy.
The Tribunal did not uphold the applicant’s claim, and voted in favour of our client by asserting that the termination from employment was a result of her behaviour at work, and that her pregnancy was an external factor to such dismissal. The Tribunal based its conclusion on corroborating evidence from other employees and ex-employees of the company, who all alleged that the applicant was negligent in her duties and placed a burden on the other team members to conduct the tasks that were primarily assigned to her. Moreover, reference was made to other employees who, after their maternity leave had elapsed, returned to work on a full-time basis.
From cross examining one of the employees of the company, who had a managerial role, it was concluded that although no written attestation of wrongful behaviour was issued to the applicant, there were various verbal warnings on such regard. Consequently, the Industrial Tribunal pronounced that the termination of the applicant was based on just grounds and was not unlawful.
An appeal
The Tribunal’s decision was eventually appealed by the employee who through her lawyer reinforced the arguments and stated that although the witnesses had declared that the employee’s attitude at the place of work was not ideal, there was no concrete evidence to showcase this.
Sciberras Advocates argued that the appeal is null and void since an appeal from a Tribunal’s decision can only be on points of law and can never be on a point of fact.
结论
Concluding, what the court had to decide is whether the appeal was done on a point of law or on a point of fact, basing itself on article 82(3) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act. Moreover, the point of law being elucidated upon must have already been determined by the Tribunal itself. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and argued that the appeal is not regarding on a point of law, but rather a fresh evaluation of the evidence produced. The court, ultimately, was not convinced with the way the aggravations were put forward, and accordingly, decided in our client’s favour.
本文仅供参考，不应被视为法律建议。.
Article written by Ms Caitlin Turner, currently reading a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at University of Malta.
Sciberras Advocates 由 Adrian Sciberras 博士创立，是一家总部位于马耳他的律师事务所。该事务所以其多学科、创新和灵活的特点而自豪，能够应对不断变化的时代以及本地和国际法律环境中的任何挑战。无论面临何种复杂私人或公司需求，Sciberras Advocates 都能提供切合实际且具有成本效益的法律解决方案，以实现您期望的结果。您可以通过电话联系 Sciberras Advocates： +35627795222或通过电子邮件发送至 [email protected].
