Former bank official awarded over Lm6,600 gratuity, allowances

A judge in the Civil Court yesterday ordered the Central Bank to pay a former assistant executive Lm6,654.93 gratuity and any other allowances due in terms of the collective agreement after he was unfairly dismissed.

Mr Justice Tonio Mallia upheld a writ of summons filed by Joseph Sammut against the bank after hearing how the bank terminated Sammut's employment as assistant executive on June 11, 1992.

In February 1993, an industrial tribunal had found that Sammut's employment had been unjustly terminated, and the bank was ordered to pay Sammut Lm5,000 compensation.

In August 1993, Sammut had called upon the bank to pay him a gratuity equivalent to one month's salary for each year he had been in employment with the bank.

The bank was also requested to pay Sammut the petrol and telephone allowances still owing and sick leave between June and September.

Sammut claimed the payments were owed in terms of the collective agreement in force at the bank.

The Central Bank, represented by then governor Francis Vassallo, had pleaded that the merits of the case had already been dealt with by the industrial tribunal and that no reinvestigation of the merits could be carried out.

Mr Justice Mallia yesterday pointed out that Sammut had filed his claim for allowances and gratuity payments in terms of the collective agreement.

Sammut was in fact claiming Lm7,302.33 in total.

The bank had pleaded that these were issues to be considered by the industrial tribunal and that it ought to have considered them when awarding compensation.

The compensation awarded by the tribunal was in settlement of all amounts due to Sammut as a result of the termination of his employment.

The court ruled that the functions of the tribunal were to determine whether or not the termination of employment was unjust.

If this was proven, then the tribunal could either order the reinstatement of the employee or award compensation.

The tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine contractual relationships between the parties.

The compensation awarded by the tribunal was directly related to Sammut's dismissal from work and the consequences of such dismissal.

Such compensation did not prevent the employee from requesting the court to award him damages arising from his contract of employment.