The Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal filed by Charles Borg from a judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court in a case filed against Corinthia Palace Hotel Co. Ltd.

Mr Borg, an employee of the Corinthia, had filed his writ against the company claiming he had been employed as a bar supervisor.

In August 1999, the company had downgraded his position to that of food and beverage operative 1 and his salary had been cut by over Lm30 a week.

According to Mr Borg the company had taken this step after he had refused to amend his contract of employment.

He claimed he had been justified in refusing to sign the contract as it was less advantageous to him than his previous one and that the company was not entitled to unilaterally change his conditions of employment.

Mr Borg had asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to award him damages.

The First Hall of the Civil Court had dismissed Mr Borg's writ and he then lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Anton Depasquale and Mr Justice Albert Magri.

He claimed that the first court had made an incorrect appreciation of the evidence produced and had wrongly concluded that the company had not downgraded him but that it was he who had refused the promotion offered to him.

The Court of Appeal declared it did not agree with the conclusions reached by the first court.

The evidence produced clearly showed that in 1997 Mr Borg was barman at the Mistra Village Hotel and that in that year he had been promoted to the post of bar supervisor with a pay increase. The food and beverage manager had written to him congratulating him upon this promotion and had outlined his duties.

No mention was made in the letter that Mr Borg would have to sign a new contract of employment.

Corinthia submitted that it was its policy that a new contract was required as Mr Borg had been promoted to management level. It explained that each executive had to have a written contract of employment.

The Court of Appeal declared that Mr Borg had been justifiably surprised when he received a letter from the general manager informing him that his position would revert to that of food and beverage operative 1 as he had refused to sign a new contract of employment.

No mention of this new contract had been made to Mr Borg when he was offered the promotion and the draft contract of employment contained certain new conditions that radically changed his conditions of work.

The Court of Appeal, therefore, found in Mr Borg's favour and declared that the company was not entitled to downgrade him from bar supervisor to food and beverage operator 1.

The court further declared that the company had acted in breach of Mr Borg's contract of employment and that the company was, therefore, liable towards Mr Borg in damages.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ordered that the case be remitted to the first court for a decision on the damages claimed by Mr Borg.