Appeal court upholds unjust dismissal ruling

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by four companies and confirmed an award of the industrial tribunal which had found that an engineer was unjustly dismissed from work.

The judgment was delivered in the proceedings filed by Norman Abela against Ex-WET Automotive Systems (Malta) Ltd, WET Manufacturing (Malta) Ltd, WET Automotive Systems (Malta) Ltd and WET Holding Company (Malta) Ltd.

The tribunal had established that Mr Abela had been employed by WET Manufacturing (Malta) Ltd in March 2000 and was dismissed on January 31, 2004.

He found a job at a lower salary with another company a month later.

Mr Abela had claimed that all the other engineers who worked in the engineering branch of the company had been employed by WET Automotive Systems (Malta) Ltd but that he had not.

According to Mr Abela, WET Manufacturing (Malta) Ltd had dismissed all its engineers, except for those who had been transferred, on the basis that the business was closing down.

The industrial tribunal found in Mr Abela's favour and ruled that his dismissal had been unjust and awarded him Lm499.

The four companies had appealed.

Mr Justice Philip Sciberras, presiding over the Appeal Court, declared that any decisions made by the tribunal on points of fact were final and unappealable.

If an appeal was filed on a point of law, the courts could hear and determine it.

The companies declared that the tribunal's award had not distinguished between them and had not established which of them was responsible to Mr Abela. This, the court said, was a point of law which had to be determined by the Court of Appeal.

Each of the companies had a separate legal and juridical personality and the tribunal ought not to have assumed that each of the four companies was responsible for Mr Abela's dismissal.

Mr Justice Sciberras declared that the tribunal ought to have held WET Manufacturing (Malta) Ltd responsible towards Mr Abela.

The court, however, dismissed all the other complaints lodged by the companies.

It was obvious that the tribunal had based its award on an appreciation of the facts and had not interpreted any legal issues, the court said.

The tribunal had ruled, after examining the evidence produced, that the reason given for Mr Abela's dismissal, namely the closure of business, was not genuine and this because three of the four engineers employed by the companies had been re-employed by them.

The court, therefore, dismissed the appeal.