A man, relentlessly "persecuted" by his ex who vowed to get him fired from his job, has been awarded €18,000 in compensation to be paid by his former employer that "unjustly" fired him after 26 years of service. 

Cedric Cassar’s ordeal started late in 2019 when he decided to break up with the woman who had been his partner for around four years, after sensing that her affection had morphed into an “obsession".

But the woman would not accept that and threatened that unless he got back with her, she would do all she could to get him fired from his job as a security assistant at Malta International Airport. 

She too had a part-time job with a private security company and was assigned work duties at the airport. 

Around December 2019, the woman called Cassar’s superiors, claiming he would stay out late with friends and report for work the following day while still under the influence of alcohol. 

The man initially shrugged off her claims, but when rumours persisted, he sensed that he was in for trouble. 

Around April 2020, his ex sent a letter to the Chief Executive Officer at MIA, alleging that Cassar stole from the workplace and was drunk while on duty. 

After preliminary investigations by the Human Resources department, charges were issued against the employee over a series of alleged breaches which he strongly denied.

The matter ended up before a disciplinary board which declared him “in breach of anti-bullying policy, the alcohol abuse policy and dereliction of duty”.

Cassar was fired from the job.

He took his grievance before the Industrial Tribunal claiming he had never reported late for work, performed all assigned duties, accepted overtime work even at short notice and had also helped solve a theft incident in 2015.

In 2016, he was even honoured with an award for his attitude and dedication at work. 

'There’s someone hell-bent on harming you'

His troubles kicked off when he decided to break up with the woman he had started a relationship with while going through a difficult time. 

Cassar recounted an episode when police had turned up at his home following a drug report. 

He recalled how he had turned cold when met with that unexpected visit, but he cooperated throughout the search. 

“There’s someone hell-bent on harming you. Be careful, Mr Cassar,” a police officer had warned on his way out after that search. 

However, Cassar’s former employer argued that although he had been granted every possibility to defend himself in terms of the collective agreement with his union, the board had found him guilty. 

A female colleague testified that she had come across Cassar sleeping while on duty. Another male colleague testified that Cassar skipped duties. 

He was said to report to work under the influence of drink, sometimes asked for last-minute emergency leave, breached company policy by accepting tips, abused of sick leave and made personal use of company property. 

However, a senior official testified that Cassar presented no problems.

The employee had also spoken about his troubles with the head of airport security who was shown the ex’s messages clearly indicating that the woman would not take no for an answer.

The tribunal examined each incident attributed to Cassar.

'Cassar was trying to have her fired'

Termination of work had been triggered by the letter that his ex claimed to have sent out of spite after learning that Cassar was trying to have her fired. 

But evidence showed that she had been reporting him to his superiors months before that letter, ever since he decided to break up with her.

Her continuous and direct calls to senior officials at MIA were intended to influence their actions against Cassar, thus keeping him under control in her bid to stop him from breaking up with her.

Her threatening messages and contact with his work colleagues and superiors amounted to “persecution,” casting her ex in a negative light and possibly influencing others’ attitudes towards him at the workplace. 

That persecution may have triggered his anxiety and affected him psychologically, the tribunal observed.

Before his troubles started, he was described as a diligent and obedient employee who showed interest in his job, participated in teamwork and got along well with colleagues. 

MIA management had a duty to protect him against such “persecution”, but instead, it did nothing. When charged before the board, Cassar was at a disadvantage.

He had no information as to when the alleged incidents had taken place, was offered no explanation and was unable to produce CCTV footage or other evidence to prove his innocence, it said.

His direct superiors had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to take disciplinary steps against him. 

Although the board found him guilty on the basis of a ‘probability’ that the alleged breaches had taken place, Cassar was dismissed and that was a form of “capital punishment” in terms of industrial relations.

The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was unjust and ordered MIA to pay the applicant €18,000 by way of compensation.

Lawyer Ezekiel Psaila assisted the applicant.