Ariadne Massa
Hotel rejects claim lawyer was fired over pregnancy
The Corinthia Group is insisting Anika Psaila Savona (pictured above in last week’s The Sunday Times) was not an employee, while she is claiming that she was treated like one. Photo: Jason Borg
The Corinthia Group has rebutted claims of discrimination against a pregnant lawyer in five counter-protests submitted in court last week.
The company reacted to a judicial protest filed by lawyer and mother-of-two, Anika Psaila Savona, who is seeking damages against her former employers for “illegal behaviour”.
Dr Psaila Savona – who had previously been employed with the Corinthia Group as a senior executive for nine years – was working as a lawyer with CHI Limited when without warning she received a letter on January 8, 2010, terminating her contract, six months into her pregnancy. Her case has been before the Industrial Tribunal for two years.
But Corinthia told The Sunday Times it stood by its record “as a leader in its employment practices” and insisted discrimination was not the style nor the ethos embodied by CHI or any of its other companies.
“The termination of Dr Psaila Savona’s engagement as consultant with CHI Limited was not in any way motivated by the fact that she was pregnant... and consequently her claims are completely unfounded both in fact and at law,” CHI said.
Corinthia Group chairman Alfred Pisani, CHI chief executive Tony Potter, CHI Limited, IHI plc, and Corinthia Palace Hotel Company plc all filed a counter-protest contesting her claims. CHI “categorically” denied it ended relations with Dr Psaila Savona because she was pregnant as she “is maliciously and vexatiously alleging”, and it could amply prove this.
It insisted its relationship with Dr Psaila Savona was purely one of consultancy and quoted the contract that states: “Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as creating an employment relationship between the parties.”
This is the disputed point this case – CHI is insisting Dr Psaila Savona was not an employee, while she is claiming that for all intents and purposes she was treated like one.
In an effort to substantiate this claim, she said that whenever she needed to take leave or was sick she had to inform the company, she had a company phone and her business cards carried the CHI Hotels and Resorts logo.
Dr Psaila Savona believes the tribunal will recognise “that substance will override form” when the full range of her contractual rights and obligations are taken into account. “All that is necessary to prove is subordination, which I can; the formal categorisation of a contract is not important,” she had said.
However, CHI said there was no doubt that Dr Psaila Savona, in spite of her legal background and the “excuses she is conveniently and deceptively” presenting, was conscious of the nature of the agreement she had signed.
Since the contract covered consultancy, it added, the European Court of Justice ruling cited by Dr Psaila Savona – involving EU directives that cover the concept of a pregnant worker, prohibition of a pregnant worker’s dismissal, and equal treatment for men and women – did not apply in this case.
“All CHI did was apply a clause in the consultancy contract... She is not entitled to any compensation... and should desist from continuing to harbour unfounded pretensions,” it said.
Dr Psaila Savona had said she decided to fight back and take on Corinthia, a big international hotel chain, to set an example for those in a similar predicament and ensure women’s rights were not trampled upon.
However, Corinthia Group defended its credentials and said it had seen female participation rate in its companies increase steadily over the years, partly thanks to its various family-friendly measures, “both before and after maternity” to attract and retain experienced female staff.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
30 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
G Casaletto
Feb 1st, 09:10
I too was employed by Corinthia and I can tell you that if you are at a certain level then unless you are prepared to put the company first before everything, you don’t have much of a future there. All the women they say they employ are those who are still at a stage in life where they can put the company before anything else. The ones with a family are lucky enough to have alternatives and a support system that looks after their family while they are at work. For those of us who didnt, it was clear that a choice had to be made.
In some of the comments below somebody mentioned a creche - I remember suggesting it to one of the GMs during my time there as I had heard of the idea being implemented in other local companies, the reply was, "Jekk m'ghandiex, biex ikolli l'ommijiet il creche min flok fl-ufficju" How short-sighted!!
With Corinthia you have to put the company first, second and third. Going on part-time or trying to achieve any form of work life balance is frowned upon, that is unless you are in a position that doesn’t really matter.
joe vella
Jan 30th, 08:38
I find certain remarks troubling- I was employed in a senior management position with Corinthia for over 4years and can ascertain that they were the best employers I ever had
I can base this assertion on a number of years employed with differenf organisations over a variety of activities.
Corinthia have a very employee oriented policy, they rarely fire anyone, it is very difficult for the pisani famly to take such action, i 'endured' it first hand and I can publicly state that they really take care of their employees to the extent that they were prepared to fork out sums to cover medical and other expences when they got to know that an employee was facing serious problems
This matter is a sad event, the pity is that the tribunal is taking so long to sort out the consultancy vs employment status
Whatever the outcome, certainly Corinthia do not deserve bad press, they have been a milestone and a vanguard in Maltese entrepreneurship and ought to be better recognised for their achievements and the contribution the organisation gives towards employment, the national economy and setting of standards in their field of operation
C Muscat
Jan 30th, 17:10
I agree 100% Joe,
James Wightman
Jan 30th, 06:59
Someone has to be pretty stupid to fire a woman who is also a lawyer for being pregnant these days, could go both ways, be interesting to see which...
Ms Victoria-Jane Krejci Buttigieg de Piro
Jan 29th, 19:27
As far as I know the Conditions of Employment Regulations act specifically prohibits an employer from terminating the employment of any person whilst pregnant unless for some serious offense which muct be proven....Some details are missing somewhere!
Kurt Galea Pace
Jan 29th, 19:13
@ Paul Caruana - How byzantine of you. What a stupid and condescending remark. Comments like yours just expose a dinosaur mentality some "male" employers have with regards to employing women. Did you ever stop to think of the emotional scar this brave woman must have gone through?
Paul Caruana
Jan 29th, 19:43
Being 9 years in the job does not mean that she is irreplaceable.
Also, if Corinthia treated her better than a simple consultant and gave her additional benefits, she should be grateful. However, she must remember that contracts are contracts and the employer is in no way obliged to go beyond the terms. She signed it and thus she agreed to such terms.
No additional comments necessary.
C Muscat
Jan 29th, 20:33
She is a brave woman and a lawyer. Her argument should go to the law courts. A good lawyer knows how to defend a case. The media should know that unlike this case many other women emplyees got pregnant and continued to work with Corinthia which commenced as a family run business..
Unfortunately our law courts are known for delays.....sometimes I hope not deliberate delays...
Karl Gambin
Jan 30th, 00:26
he thinks that someone gave him the right to be "discouraged from employing women". How hilarious.
Joseph Borg
Jan 29th, 18:19
If her salary was paid by the company, paying the NC and paying taxes from the same salary then for me she is being treated like all the rest of employees. That clause should have been never said on her contract and I cant beleive why a person especially a lawyer accepted it. Either you employ me or not.
Those and others like statement are nothing but tricks to be used as loop holes and favour nobody except the employer himself. Contents of such contracts and others should be approved by the Employment department prior signing by both parties.
Tony Brincat
Jan 30th, 12:06
I think the answer as to why she accepted it is in last weeks article. The reporter writes "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."
Knowledge of the risk should not mean that she is not entitled to defend herself. There are other factors at play, not least human ones and God only knows the type of politics in a company like Corinthia.
Peter Shaw
Jan 29th, 18:16
She wants to have her cake and eat it ! She is a lawyer for heaven's sake and she knew what she was signing for ! She has no excuse !
A Ellul
Feb 1st, 15:07
I think the contrary is true - it is the company that wanted to have the best of both worlds! pay her and treat her like an employee but get rid of her when she is no longer convenient just like a consultant.
And does it mean that since she is a lawyer she has no rights. There are obviously other factors at play, company politics not being the least of them, especially with a company like Corinthia.
It seems that things changed for her when she started work on a part-time basis whatever the reasons. If it is true that the company negotiated a part-time employment agreement with her and then changed it at the last minute, then the Company is in bad faith.
In any event the fact remains she was pregnant at the time and to terminate her engagement at that time showed a great disregard both for her health and that of the child. That is why these laws are there to protect one from such situations.Let us hope they get enforced and in the short term too to send a clear and loud message that this type of behaviour is simply not acceptable.
C Muscat
Jan 29th, 17:58
I do not intent to go into this particular case. It is sub judice..she is a lawyer and I think that the place to judge this case is the tribunal. Here I have my doubts how these work because I am following a 'hit and run ' with a witness clearly seeing the company's name on the vehicle...the police report pointing to which vehicle (after a lot of work) and the tribunal judge do call for more sittings and still more sittings when in a hit and run the police will not even come and when he is caught he will be held liable straight away.
I hope that this case as my case will be dealt without any unnecessary delays.
Mark Vassallo
Jan 29th, 15:53
It's not really important whether or not the firm considered her to be an employee or contractor.
As the Bard so eloquently put it:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Joseph Borg
Jan 29th, 14:04
@ C Muscat
No I cannot agree to that. It is not clear at all. How can you make a statement such as that? every person's experience is individual and what is under discussion is this case and not any other.
The fact is she was pregnant when she was terminated. The second fact according to the report is that they did not give a reason why they terminated her engagement. Laws are there to pregnant pregnant workers precisely because they have to be protected as they are at their most vulnerable.
Corinthia's claim that they are family friendly etc has very little to show for it. With all the employees that they have on the island do they even have one single creche?!!!!
Ms Victoria-Jane Krejci Buttigieg de Piro
Jan 29th, 19:24
What excuses do you mean exactly? pregnancy can hardly be seen an excuse....If your mother had not been pregnant then YOU would not have been here to post such a comment.......I can assure you that women can contribute just as much as men to society and can multitask and manage families and a multitude of other things simultaneously..,...Shame on you calling yourself an emplpoyer.......In 2012 it is illegal to discriminate amongst sexes as an employer.......
Paul Caruana
Jan 29th, 11:35
This woman here is making bad publicity for employing women.
Companies exist to make a profit. They are not a social welfare.
Such a fuss surely discourages me as an employer from employing women if they are going to use such excuses to exploit my company.
Joseph Borg
Jan 29th, 19:25
Companies exist to make a profit. Good
Did you ever realized that a comment like yours show what kind of human you are.
Karl Gambin
Jan 30th, 00:25
Discourages you? Since when do you posses the right to prefer man over women or vice versia when it comes to employment? True, companies exist to make a profit. You are allowed and encouraged to make a profit within a legislative framework which stresses equality at the work place.
Ka Busuttil
Jan 30th, 04:59
Thank God we're not stuck in the caveman-age you're projecting. Bad publicity is for Corinthia who potentially acted illedally towards this woman. (Pregnant) women do have rights and amongst others those include that you cannot be dismissed just because you're pregnant! Get your head out of the sand and catch up with the times man...
Tony Brincat
Jan 30th, 12:27
What a plonker! Corinthia is definitely not a charity and the woman here is not asking for charity.........! She used to work and the company benefitted from her work and paid for it. The issue is whether they decided to let her go once she got pregnant.
As the law goes it is presumed that if a woman is pregnant and she loses her job, then it is presumed that it is because of the pregnancy. Did the letter informing her of her termination give her good reasons why they were terminating the agreement? if not, then they are guilty of discrimination and should pay her damages.
Pierre Ellul
Jan 29th, 10:11
“A leader in its employment practices” – what a joke! Is that why persons working in Libya were made to go back during the war otherwise they would lose their job.
C Muscat
Jan 29th, 09:45
Tha main contention is whether Corinthia stopped this employment because the MS was pregnant. Corinthia employs so many female employees that if this is true no one employed with Corinthia would like to have his daughter with such a company. This is not the case as many emplyed with Corinthia would like to employ a daughter with this company.
Whether as a consultant or as an employee, any company the size of Corinthia would do all its best to keep the person inits employment if the service offered is good.
Naturally if the service is not as expected, the employer would take the most direct line to say thank you for your service... but this service is no longer required.
I would like to conclude to say that I am sorry for anyone losing the employment for whatever reason, but for fairness sake we are not to be taken for a ride and say that Corinthia stops any employment because of pregnancy and this lawyer knows that this is not the true reason because so many other workers were pregnant and were given all the support to be back when they are ready.
Joseph Borg
Jan 29th, 10:51
it is not every female in employment with Corinthia that is the issue, but this particular one. God forbid Corinthia had to behave this way with every female employee it has. The woman in question worked for the Company for 9 years. So was it a coincidence that they no longer needed her services when she was pregnant?!!!
The difference with this woman is that evidently after so many years of service, she was seeking to balance her work and life by having a part time employment and with Corinthia, were with Corinthia, Corinthia is the family and comes first, and that is not acceptable.
C Muscat
Jan 29th, 12:44
@joseph Borg as long as you agree that it is clear that the termination was not due to pregnancy one can discuss any other issue of termination of employment. This company gives every opportunity for any employee males and females to take care of any family problem.
The reason for termination might be anything but not because she was pregnant.
Maria Xuereb
Jan 29th, 09:36
Whatever the Company may claim, the fact remains the woman was pregnant and they terminated her agreement without giving her any reason.
Tony Brincat
Jan 29th, 09:17
Getting workers to sign “consultancy agreements” instead of employment agreements is an age old trick companies use to try and avoid their responsibilities to employees. I think it was Corinthia who was deceptive and not the good lady. Other countries limit this abuse by introducing legislation where if the majority of the “consultant’s” income (say 70%) is from one company, that person is considered an employee not a consultant. Legislators please note.
John G Borg
Jan 29th, 11:57
Exactly
Tanya Briffa
Jan 29th, 15:36
On the subject of "self-employed" employees an eminent lawyer once said "if it looks like a dog, behaves like a dog and barks like a dog, then it is, most probably, a dog".
Likewise with this kind of working relationship - they want you at their beck and call but want to call you a "consultant", seems like they want the best of both worlds.
It is permissible to terminate the employment of a pregnant woman as long as a good reason is given in writing. I have not found mention of any justifiable reason within the text above, or am I missing something?
Just because a company is huge and employs hundreds, in Malta and abroad, does not mean they are above the law and I hope the Tribunal proves this.