Mother files protest over dismissal in pregnancy
A lawyer claiming her pregnancy led to her dismissal in 2010 has filed a judicial protest against her former employers giving them one week to issue compensation.
Anika Psaila Savona, 41, is seeking damages for “illegal behaviour” and has taken action against Corinthia Group chairman Alfred Pisani, CHI chief executive Tony Potter, CHI Limited, IHI plc, and Corinthia Palace Hotel Company Plc.
“Individuals are also responsible for their actions and should not be able to hide behind a company,” she says, explaining why she also filed the protest against Mr Pisani and Mr Potter.
When contacted, Mr Pisani’s lawyer would only say the company was preparing a reply and would be filing a counter protest in due course.
Employed as a senior executive with Corinthia Group for nine years, Dr Psaila Savona was working as a lawyer with CHI when she received a letter on January 8, 2010, terminating her employment – six months into herpregnancy.
Dr Psaila Savona took her case to the Industrial Tribunal – but two years on, seven sittings later and with two babies in tow, the case has made little progress.
She laments that the case is still at the preliminary stages as the tribunal attempts to establish whether it has jurisdiction due to the company’s claim that Dr Psaila Savona was employed as a consultant and was not an employee.
Dr Psaila Savona confirmed that after being on a full-time contract for nearly seven years, the contract signed in 2007 was entitled ‘consultancy agreement’, but for all intents and purposes she was treated as an employee.
She concedes that while as a lawyer she was aware of the risk she was being exposed to, she felt pressured into signing because she feared not doing so would be deemed lack of trust in her new CEO who had verbally promised to put her back on the payroll.
She had been trying to negotiate her indefinite part-time contract since July 2009, but whenshe informed the company of her pregnancy the discussions stopped. She was then let gowithout warning.
When the story had first surfaced in The Sunday Times two years ago, Corinthia had denied Dr Psaila Savona’s claims, describing her accusations as “false”. The company added it would be addressing the matter in court.
Looking back on the case, Dr Psaila Savona believes the debate over whether she was an employee or a consultant became irrelevant in the light of aEuropean Court of Justice ruling, Dita Danosa vs LKB Lízings SIA, in November 2010.
Dr Anika Psaila Savona insists the ECJ case makes such discussions irrelevant as it confirms that “a worker” under EU directives is interpreted in the widest form.
“All that is necessary to prove is subordination, which I can; the formal categorisation of a contract is not important,” she says.
Dr Psaila Savona said she had decided to fight back and take on Corinthia, a big international hotel chain, to set an example to those in a similar predicament and ensure women’s rights are not trampled upon.
“I sympathise with younger women who are in a similarsituation but don’t have the resources to take on employers who have treated them unfairly or are too scared to be blacklisted as a troublemaker,” she said.
“There is a form of reluctance when taking on a company as powerful as Corinthia as their reach is broad and future employment prospects could be prejudiced,” she said.
“What has been difficult is that at a society level, certain people have distanced themselves from us, preferring I did nothing and maintained the status quo... By losing my job in my prime, the government has lost out too as my contributions to its coffers are now significantly less.”
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Pierre Ellul
Jan 23rd, 22:22
If APS were truly a consultant would Corinthia announce her appointment with all the bells and rings as they did. Check this out:
http://www.asiatraveltips.com/news07/218-CorinthiaHotels.shtml
Irrespective of what they called her contract, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, even if you call it a dog!!!
In any event the whole point of the article and the ECJ case is that irrespective of whether it is a duck or a dog, a company cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of sex. And since as far as we know to date only women can get pregnant, terminating a pregnant woman is discrimination.
Victor Zammit
Jan 22nd, 17:01
“She had been trying to negotiate her indefinite part-time contract since July 2009, but when she informed the company of her pregnancy the discussions stopped. She was then let go without warning.”
The good lady may well have been dropped in pregnancy but maybe not, as the article seems to suggest, for the pregnancy. The case hinges on the lack of warning. And thereby hangs a tale.
Joseph Borg
Jan 22nd, 17:18
VIctor read again....the article suggests nothing of the sort!
Victor Zammit
Jan 22nd, 18:05
Mr Joseph Borg
I think the article does, covertly:
“A lawyer claiming her pregnancy led to her dismissal in 2010 has filed a judicial protest …When the story had first surfaced in The Sunday Times two years ago, Corinthia had denied Dr Psaila Savona’s claims, describing her accusations as “false”….Dr Psaila Savona said she had decided to fight back …to set an example to those in a similar predicament and ensure women’s rights are not trampled upon.”
Besides, all the claims mentioned, other than the pregnancy, are of a procedural nature, not substantive to warrant dismissal.
James McIntosh
Jan 22nd, 13:04
Since the courts are being unwilling to process this case why not take it to the European court instead.
The resultant fallout towards misuse of power would make their eyes water I am sure.
When are the Maltese Authorities going to wake up to the fact that "Illegal Business as Usual" is no longer permited within the EU and the Commissioners WILL soon be prosecuting these same Authorities for being in non-compliance of EU Law.
Mr Joseph Apap
Jan 22nd, 12:58
If dr. Anika Psaila Savona was employed as a part timer
then the part time regulations come into this case
Also if she was a self employed and was herself paying NI as a self employed
then what she is asking does not hold ground
The agreement she had with the company sould also be taken into consideration
If the above are outside of your agreement then Good Luck to You
But also in the meantime in the picture above you are holding two children, Are both yours
One born before the case and one later?
Enrica Garroni
Jan 22nd, 11:44
Anika, good on you for fighting against this despicable injustice, as well as setting the example! Wishing you the very best of luck!
stephen koludrovic
Jan 22nd, 10:47
So, being pregnant any woman could possibly be given the chop, right!
This is exactly the opposite of what this government is preaching, about encouraging married women to return back to the work pool.
Good luck to you Anika, hopefully a new administration will make new laws to protect your rights.
D Agius
Jan 22nd, 11:35
The article clearly states that she was a contractor, not an employee. Dita Danosa was on the board of directors, not a contractor. Pregnant women are heavily protected in their employment, when they ARE an employee. In this case, it seems she was not so she was not protected under the same rights unless it explicitly stated that in her contract.
The fact that she was bullied into accepting a change from an employment contract to a consultancy could be argued in court, but it would be hard to prove it.
Contractors generally benefit by paying less taxes overall, so they pocket more money while still costing the same to the company contracting them, but there are risks and this is one of them.
I honestly wish Anika the best of luck but, if anything, this case should bring some awareness that signing a contract, as standard as it may appear at face value, should be dealt with extremely cautiously and must be scrutinised and challenged BEFORE signing. If an employer is not willing to accept an employee's grilling, maybe that employer is not worthy of your work...
Tonio Bone
Jan 22nd, 12:09
Stephen, in Malta, unless you are working with a decent organisation, I'm afraid a woman would be at risk of losing her job over a precious pregnancy! We ARE in Europe, but not completely there yet (at least not where it is NOT convenient).
LOUIS JOSEPH BORG
Jan 22nd, 13:42
goverment laws are only for goverment workers and companies like banks and not for hotel workers which have no rights at all and are the worst treated in malta
Daniel Micallef
Jan 22nd, 10:23
Well done Anika. Finally there is someone who has the right attributes to show the suit dressed people that they are not above the LAW. Maybe they will realise that we simpletons do have our legal rights! Thank you Anika!
Michael Sammut
Jan 22nd, 09:51
Good stuff Anika. Wish you all the best. These are difficult situations to go through.
Michael