Court slams Broadcasting Authority for forcing cancer-stricken secretary out

A court has rebuked the Broadcasting Authority for forcing its cancer-stricken board secretary to resign.

Former authority secretary Simon Manicolo argued that he was forced to resign after the Broadcasting Authority began disciplinary proceedings against him and made it clear that he no longer had the board’s trust.

Those proceedings centred on Manicolo carrying out some private notarial work while he was on sick leave from his full-time job at the authority.

When the unfair dismissal was first brought before litigation, the Industrial Tribunal concluded that, because the board secretary had offered his resignation in a letter, he had no case.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision earlier this week, ruling that Manicolo had been constructively dismissed, meaning he was forced to leave.

In his judgment, Judge Laurence Mintoff said that, instead of showing empathy towards their secretary, who “was literally fighting for his life”, some members of the BA board “fanned the flames of negative sentiments concerning the appellant [Manicolo]”.

Those efforts were evident in the minutes of board meetings seen by the court.

Mintoff therefore ordered the Industrial Tribunal to award Manicolo the damages due to him over the unfair dismissal.

'Abuse of sick leave'

Throughout the proceedings, the court heard how Manicolo, a BA employee for 33 years, had been encouraged by the authority to study and qualify as a notary.

After obtaining his warrant as a notary public, Manicolo began working privately in a limited capacity while retaining his full-time job at the BA.

Following his diagnosis with intestinal cancer, he went on sick leave from his BA job in June 2020.

In October, the board sent Manicolo a letter asking for an update on his health and whether he intended to return to work. A few days later, Manicolo’s wife called the authority’s CEO and explained that Manicolo was too ill to reply.

The authority nevertheless sent another letter on November 13, asking for a reply.

The following day, board member and lawyer Peter Fenech met Manicolo while he was carrying out notarial work and overseeing a promise-of-sale agreement.

By the end of the month, Manicolo was facing disciplinary proceedings over the alleged “abuse of sick leave”.

During those proceedings, Manicolo offered to apologise and said he was willing to accept a written warning. The board said it would not consider the offer, the court heard.

Manicolo then wrote a letter saying:

“I am hopeful that the board will give heed to this honest plea and look forward to a just and reasonable settlement of this ordeal. Should the board so decide, I am prepared to return to my duties loyally and dutifully, closing this chapter with a written reprimand. Should the board nevertheless no longer have trust in me fulfilling my duties, then please consider this letter as a resignation, which I submit to the board with regret.”

The letter was immediately accepted by the board as a resignation.

The judge considered that Manicolo had been encouraged by his doctors to carry out some private work from home, but not to attend an office environment because of his low immunity.

“This court does not hesitate to place itself in the position of the persons appearing before it, and it cannot bring itself to condemn a father and head of a family who, while fighting for his life, did what he could and, when circumstances allowed, tried to return to some semblance of normality, as best he could and within the limitations he faced,” the judge said.