Court of Appeal upholds decision in favour of employee in unfair dismissal case

The decision in favour of a man who was unfairly dismissed from his place of work by Ozo Services was on Wednesday upheld on appeal.

In an earlier tribunal decision, it was concluded the employee was not granted a fair hearing, and that his dismissal by the company was unjust.

The company, Ozo Services Limited, filed an appeal against the decision delivered in May of last year, but it was denied and the previous ruling was upheld.

Micheal Cacciattolo, 65, was employed by OZO Services Ltd. on a full-time, indefinite contract. His employment involved the role of a security guard at the Wasteserv plant.

Although employed by OZO, employees at the Wasteserv plant were under Wasteserv’s direction and control. The collective agreement which governed the plaintiff’s employment was originally negotiated with Wasteserv and the UĦM union, and OZO was bound to respect this.

On 15 June 2022, a fire broke out at the Wasteserv site, where Cacciattolo was stationed.

The management believed that he had been negligent in his duties. Serious allegations were made and the company accused him of obstructing security cameras, causing damage to a guard van, not wearing the required ‘safety shoes’, and also alleged that he slept on the job.

Therefore, a day later, he was suspended with half pay pending investigation and until the necessary disciplinary processes were carried out.

During the disciplinary hearing, he was not present. Despite this, he was found guilty of the disciplinary charges and a week later, he was officially informed that his employment was being terminated.

He subsequently appealed this decision alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice, including his right to be heard. He stated that even if the supposed allegations were proven, this did not justify him not being present during the proceedings initated against him.

The tribunal was therefore tasked with deciding whether the dismissal of the employee was lawful and whether the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with the collective agreement governing his employment.

The Industrial Tribunal found the way the board involved in the decision was composed, breached the agreement.

Both members appointed to the board were from the company and only one should have been. Due to this irregularity and other procedural issues, including lack of a proper notice and right to be heard and to defend himself, the tribunal ruled the employee's dismissal was unjust and in violation of his right to a fair hearing.

The employee therefore requested compensation in the amount of €31,500 - €2,500 for the months he was left unemployed, and an additional €1,000 a month for the next months leading up to his retirement.

The Tribunal however awarded him €8,250, since his actual monthly pay was much less than €2,500 and there was no guarantee he would have stayed at his job until retirement. The amount was to be paid to Cacciattolo by OZO within 15 days.

In its decision, the tribunal had also taken into consideration that he been employed with the company for over four years.

In the appeal, the court examined whether the industrial tribunal was correct in finding that the disciplinary board which dismissed the victim was in breach of the relevant collective agreement, and in violation of his rights.

Cacciattolo argued again that the board included two members from the employers’ side: one from Wasteserv and another from OZO Services Ltd, and that there was no representative from the union. The court agreed, noting that it was implicit that this person should be nominated by or at least agreed upon by the union, to ensure balanced representation.

The employer tried to argue that the tribunal overstepped its powers by declaring a breach of fundamental rights without being asked to do so. However, the court dismissed this, finding that the tribunal was well within its remit to evaluate this.

The court of appeal therefore confirmed the tribunal’s reasoning and dismissed the employer’s appeal, upholding the decision in full and ordering the employer to bear the costs.

Cacciattolo was represented by lawyers Andrew Grima and Sheldon Micallef. The court was presided over by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff.