It took four years for the Industrial Tribunal to conclude it has no jurisdiction over a case where an expectant mother claimed her pregnancy led to her dismissal in 2010.
Anika Psaila Savona, 43, who worked as legal counsel with CHI Hotels and Resorts, formerly Corinthia Hotels International, had filed the case after receiving a letter terminating her engagement, six months into her pregnancy.
“The law is meant to protect pregnant women precisely because they are vulnerable, but the reality is that most judicial proceedings are lengthy and can be drawn out even more by technicalities,” Dr Psaila Savona, who has since had two children, said when contacted.
I am patient… so I will continue to persevere
Her story was first featured in The Sunday Times of Malta when she decided to take on Corinthia, a big international hotel chain, to seek redress for herself and set an example to those in a similar predicament to try to ensure women’s rights were not trampled upon.
Corinthia has always rebutted Dr Psaila Savona’s claims and stood by its claim “as a leader in its employment practices”, insisting discrimination was not the style nor the ethos embodied by CHI or any of its other companies.
Apart from the case before the tribunal, both sides went on to file judicial protests and counter-protests in court in 2012 over compensation and damages.
The case before the tribunal revolved around whether Dr Psaila Savona was engaged as a legal consultant or an employee.
Both sides agree that after being on a full-time contract for nearly seven years, Dr Psaila Savona signed a consultancy agreement in 2007, but that is where the consensus ends.
Corinthia is insisting 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 what the tribunal relied on when it decided it was “not competent to hear the case” because the relationship between the two was “one of consultancy and not employment”.
But despite the clause in the contract, Dr Psaila Savona is insisting that for all intents and purposes she was treated like an employee.
Substantiating this claim, she said 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.
She said she had 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.
This is a point the CEO contests, only conceding under cross-examination that he had said he would “reconsider the situation” once matters calmed down.
Reacting to the tribunal’s conclusions, Dr Psaila Savona said: “It’s an old tactic to put an employee on a ‘consultancy agreement’.
“It’s a pity the tribunal did not agree that mine was really an employment arrangement, especially since after my case started the law was changed to ensure this sort of thing doesn’t happen.
“I guess I’ll go down as the one ‘consultant’ who had to apply for vacation leave. Some have criticised me saying that as a lawyer I shouldn’t have fallen for it. Trusting him [the CEO] was my only mistake… They gave me this contract at a time when I was most vulnerable – my mother had just passed away and I am a daughter before I am a lawyer.”
Dr Psaila Savona was points out that the tribunal’s decision was purely on the jurisdictional issue when the real issue – that her contract was terminated when she was six months pregnant – was not even the subject of the proceedings.
However, she has already filed a case before the civil court.
“I am patient and have been fortunate to receive tremendous support so I will continue to persevere.”