Jonathan Ferris has moved one step closer in his campaign to prove he was the victim of discriminatory treatment when his employment at the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit was terminated during his probationary period.
Ferris on Wednesday won his appeal against a tribunal decision stating that there was no discrimination when his employment as a manager at the FIAU was terminated in 2017.
That decision delivered in May last year in a work-related dispute instituted by Ferris, was declared null and the case sent back before the Industrial Tribunal which had failed to sufficiently motivate its final decision.
Although the relative legislation regulating such employment proceedings did not require the Tribunal to provide detailed motivation for its judgement, in Ferris’ case the reasoning did not satisfy that legal requisite.
Indeed, the motivation of the Tribunal was “poor and lacking in clarity,” observed the Court of Appeal, presided over by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff.
The case stemmed from a decision to terminate Ferris’ employment as Manager Analysis Section back in June 2017.
Ferris filed proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal against the then-FIAU Chairman Peter Grech- subsequently replaced by Jesmond Gatt in November 2020- claiming that he had been subjected to discriminatory treatment.
Such treatment was not acceptable within a democratic society, argued Ferris, claiming compensation.
'Vague' reasons
Last May, the Tribunal threw out his claims, concluding that the FIAU had a right to terminate since Ferris was still within the period of probation.
As for the alleged discrimination, the Tribunal observed that since Ferris had been the only manager, it was more problematic to verify such an allegation.
Ferris had been assigned various cases to investigate, had received training abroad and had started working on his assigned duties, the Tribunal noted.
Ferris appealed that decision on various grounds, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to grasp the meaning of discrimination in terms of employment law and to investigate his case properly.
His former employer had not been asked to give reasons for the dismissal, nor explain why Ferris was not subjected to appropriate disciplinary proceedings.
It was for the defendant to prove that there had been no discrimination against him, argued Ferris.
When delivering judgment, the judge observed that saying that the Tribunal had not investigated Ferris’ claim as it should have, was a divergence of opinion.
But the same could not be said about the appellant’s argument that the Tribunal had failed to consider all arguments and submissions put forward by his lawyers and that it had failed to sufficiently motivate its decision.
The court could not help but agree with the appellant that the brief reasons given by the Tribunal were “vague.”
The parties’ submissions were not explained except in a very brief manner and even less so were Ferris’s arguments about the alleged discrimination taken into account.
The court deemed that this case deserved greater attention and the Tribunal’s decision certainly did not satisfy what was acceptable in terms of law.
That decision was thus quashed and the case sent back before the Tribunal to take note of the court’s pronouncement and to deliver a decision accordingly.
Lawyers Andrew Borg Cardona, Jason Azzopardi and Eve Borg Costanzi assisted Ferris.