Ex-MIA employee loses compensation case after promotions injustice

A former MIA worker who was found to have been unfairly passed over for promotion has lost a case for compensation by the company, which argued that the issue took place before the company was privatised and it was no longer under the direction of the prime minister.

Joseph Cassar on October 6, 1997 has instituted a case against MIA before the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustice, claiming that he was unfairly passed over for promotion. He claimed that other less qualified persons were promoted but he was passed over because he was a delegate of the Labour Party and the GWU.

While the case was being heard, MIA was privatised.

The tribunal subsequently declared that there were no reasons why Mr Cassar should not have been promoted to Safety and Security Executive. It therefore ordered that he be promoted, with the appointment backdated to 1991, when the appointments were made.

The company refused, pointing out that it had since been privatised and was not bound to follow the recommendation of the tribunal. It said Mr Cassar should seek his remedy from the government.

The Management and Personnel Office of the Office of the Prime Minister wrote to MIA in 2004 saying that the prime minister had approved the implementation of the tribunal's decision. The OPM said that companies such as this, which were no longer controlled by the government, were still considered as bodies set up by law and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

MIA, however, disputed this interpretation and said the prime minister had acted ultra vires and had violated its constitutional rights.

Mr Cassar argued that there were other cases where tribunal decisions were implemented after privatisation.

He therefore instituted court proceedings against MIA, calling on it to pay him the difference in pay from the grade in which he had retired, to that of Safety and Security Executive.

MIA objected, insisted that it was up to the prime minister to implement the recommendation of the tribunal and it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

The court said that while the prime minister was obliged to implement the recommendations of the tribunal, he could only give directives to those who fell under his responsibilities.

MIA fell under his responsibilities before it was privatised, but once MIA no longer fell under the direction of the government, directives could not be issued to it.

It therefore turned down Mr Cassar's requests.