Jonathan Ferris’ claims that he was discriminated against and unjustly dismissed from his managerial post at the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) were vindicated by a tribunal that awarded him €20,000 in compensation.

The former police inspector, whose name is synonymous with several major financial crime investigations, had taken up the position of Head of Unit at the FIAU on November 1, 2016. 

But his new employment was short-lived. 

On June 16, 2017, he was fired during the probation period following a unanimous decision by the Board of Governors on the recommendation of the FIAU director.

In a statement issued after that dismissal, the FIAU claimed the decision was “based solely on an objective and comprehensive performance assessment.”

But Ferris claimed otherwise, insisting that that decision was politically motivated and that such discriminatory treatment in his regard was not acceptable in a democratic society. 

He filed proceedings against the FIAU before the Industrial Tribunal.

The FIAU claimed that Ferris’s arguments were frivolous and not proven.

Moreover, since his termination had taken place during probation, that decision could not be reviewed in terms of law. 

According to former chair of the FIAU board Peter Grech, the industrial dispute registered by Ferris was nothing but an attempt “to force an investigation into what had led to the termination”.

The tribunal had to determine whether an employee could suffer discrimination during probation and whether this was so in Ferris’s case. 

When delivering its decision on Friday, chair Anna Mallia observed that during probation an employer cannot do as he pleases simply because the employee is still on trial. 

Rather, he must make sure that the newcomer is performing his duties well.

He should offer the employee all support and assistance necessary to help him integrate into the new work environment rather than subject him to discrimination or victimisation by way of a strategy leading to his dismissal. 

Did Ferris suffer discrimination during probation?

Ferris claimed that there were “political reasons” behind his dismissal and hence, he suffered discrimination. 

On the basis of the evidence put forward, the tribunal upheld that claim, observing that Ferris’ colleagues at the FIAU had not faced the same fate. 

Trouble appeared to brew when FIAU reports about suspected financial wrongdoing at the now-shuttered Pilatus Bank were leaked to the media. 

That was when Ferris was no longer trusted, unlike fellow officials, including three new analysts, who shared the same common password as Ferris. 

In fact, the whole team shared that password, although the system could detect any login and any changes effected thereto. 

Yet, all suspicions fell upon Ferris as the one who had leaked those reports. 

On May 2, 2017, two days after seeing the Pilatus report drawn up by the compliance analyst, Ferris was instructed to steer clear of any investigations concerning the bank. 

His superiors claimed that he had a conflict of interest since he had investigated and arrested former Pilatus employee, Maria Efimova, for alleged fraud against the bank.

However, he was still to retain his position as Head of Unit, Ferris was told. 

But after that date, he was sidelined in all FIAU discussions concerning politically exposed persons. 

Other members of the team were not. 

The tribunal failed to understand how the FIAU claimed not to be satisfied with Ferris’ performance, yet at the same time kept him on as Head of Unit, even when the leaks began. 

He was also deemed sufficiently trustworthy to represent the regulator both locally and abroad, sometimes accompanied by those same people who later certified that he did not perform well. 

Nor was it proven that he had leaked those reports because he was not the only person at FIAU who had access to them. 

It was not proven that “sensitive” records had not been taken away by others who preceded Ferris at FIAU. 

The first report about Pilatus bank was not prepared by Ferris and the one concerning Adrian Hillman was done before his time. 

Another report on suspected kickbacks between Hillman and former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri was only handed to Ferris to sign when he first joined the FIAU. 

Two reports about Schembri completed in June 2016 and November 2016 were passed on to the police, but Ferris only signed the second one. 

He also did not draw up the report on former minister Konrad Mizzi and the board never convened to decide whether to forward it to the police. 

As for another report about the LNG tanker, it was only signed by Ferris and not finalised by the FIAU board. 

After considering each of those reports, the tribunal concluded that there was no proof that they had been leaked by Ferris.

When all was considered his dismissal was deemed discriminatory and unjustified, said the tribunal and based on Ferris’s gross salary, annual increments and performance bonuses, awarded him €20,000 compensation. 

Lawyers Andrew Borg Cardona, Jason Azzopardi and Eve Borg Costanzi assisted Ferris.