Former senior Allied Newspapers journalist Ivan Camilleri was awarded €171,000 in compensation by a tribunal that upheld his claim of unjustified dismissal on grounds that the company did not adhere to a proper disciplinary process.

When meting out damages, the tribunal attributed 25% responsibility to the journalist on the basis of his “disrespectful attitude” in respect of third parties and work colleagues about which his former employer had also issued various charges.

The decision (attached) was delivered on Friday in the industrial dispute which Camilleri filed against the company, claiming that the termination in 2019 was unfair and wrongful.

Allied rebutted those claims arguing that his termination of employment was motivated by “grave reasons” deemed just and sufficient in terms of law. The company has said it will appeal.

But when all was considered, the tribunal concluded that the company’s hasty handling of the situation resulted in a blatant breach of the collective agreement, thus placing the parties on an unequal footing and making it impossible for Camilleri to defend himself.

In December 19, 2019, Camilleri was summoned to the managing director’s office where, in the presence of two board members and the editor-in-chief, he was faced with two allegations. 

One related to a shoplifting incident at a Naxxar supermarket, about which Malta Today had originally published a story in October 2019. 

Camilleri had denied that allegation when first questioned about it by his superiors in October and Allied had issued a statement saying it was backing its employee after conducting an internal investigation on the matter. 

The second issue put to Camilleri in a memo during that meeting in the managing director’s office, concerned the alleged leak of information to Yorgen Fenech who was facing prosecution for complicity in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia. 

Information about that alleged leak by “Ivan tat-Times” had emerged in court during Fenech’s proceedings earlier that morning.

Camilleri was asked to explain. He denied both allegations and was asked to leave the room. 

An hour or so later, he was called back to the office and handed his termination letter. 

Camilleri subsequently sued Allied for unjustified dismissal. 

The tribunal observed that when called to that meeting, the journalist was in the dark about the agenda yet was expected to prove his innocence on the spot. Although he denied the allegations and asked for legal assistance, he was asked to leave the room and wait. 

When called back within the hour, he was handed the termination letter. It was over in an hour and a half. 

Managing director Michel Rizzo testified that in the interim, he had spoken to all other board members and obtained their consent to go ahead with the dismissal. 

Allied argued that when news of the leak emerged in court that morning, the company had to make “critical decisions” to safeguard its reputation and also that of its journalist. 

The country was experiencing a tense situation, there was too much “going on at the time” and the employer could not follow disciplinary procedures under the collective agreement “strictly to the letter”.

The tribunal understood the context of that decision to terminate and the particular challenge faced by management, but it was “still another day at the office” and that did not diminish the employer’s responsibility to act according to law. 

Allied’s mistake was not to take the option of suspending Camilleri, investigating the matter further and continue with disciplinary proceedings. Once Camilleri denied the allegations from the start, the employer should not have chosen that route. 

And the managing director, to whom Camilleri would have had a right to appeal any decision taken by management, should not have been involved in that meeting. His presence effectively cast aside the right to appeal. 

The HR manager, the expert on the matter, was not involved and the tribunal deemed that “very strange.” 

The company expected its employee to prove his innocence rather than produce evidence to support its own allegations. 

Management should not have relied on a journalistic source as the basis for terminating Camilleri’s employment. 

Moreover, they should have investigated the matter immediately rather than take hasty action once news of the leak emerged, allowing it to be controlled or manipulated by competitors. 

Allied produced evidence about Camilleri’s character. He tried to justify his disrespectful attitude by arguing that he had been provoked or wronged. But that attitude reflected "arrogance and was totally not acceptable."

Camilleri's attitude made an already difficult situation at work even more difficult, the tribunal said.

Still, when all was considered, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal breached the collective agreement and was unjustified. 

It awarded compensation to the tune of €171,569. 

Allied Newspapers stands by its decision 

Allied Newspapers Limited said it stands by its decision to dismiss Camilleri summarily. 

A spokesperson for the company said: “Camilleri was not dismissed over a trifling incident, but over a series of actions which, in the company’s view, amounted to gross misconduct and a total breach of trust.

“Journalists at Times of Malta are encouraged to hold others to account for their actions and it is only right and proper that they themselves observe such standards. Had the company failed to act, it would have been failing Times of Malta’s staff, its readership and the entire organisation. 

The company is examining the Industrial Tribunal’s ruling and will file an appeal.