A pharmacist was awarded €4,000 compensation after a tribunal ruled that she suffered “limited” discrimination when she was sacked because she could not take up full-time employment due to family commitments.

Anita Cassar Bellizzi worked as a full-timer at San Raffael Pharmacy in Marsa but on reduced hours because she had two children to take care of.

However, when her employer insisted she should work full hours and she refused because of family commitments, she was replaced by another pharmacist who had no children and had no similar family commitments.

She took the matter to the industrial tribunal, which ruled Ms Cassar Bellizzi had suffered “a limited degree of discrimination”.

In her case against pharmacy owners Maria, Karl, Malcolm and Saviour Micallef, Ms Cassar Bellizzi said she had joined in June 2008 and worked there until October 2011, when she was informed that her employment was being terminated.

Before taking maternity leave, she used to work mornings, between 8am and 1pm. On her return, the pharmacy owners had asked her to switch to full-time employment and she accepted, on condition she worked reduced hours.

All went well at first, however, the owners eventually started complaining that they were finding it difficult to get someone to manage when she was not there, including on Saturdays, Ms Cassar Bellizzi said. Maria Micallef testified that the reduced hours were causing particular problems because they needed to replace her with part-timers. She said Ms Cassar Bellizzi had also requested a pay package the pharmacy could not afford.

The tribunal, chaired by lawyer Yana Micallef Stafrace, said the pharmacy was a small enterprise that required a certain level of certainty in terms of employment of people who could manage it. It said the pharmacy owners sought more peace of mind when they employed another pharmacist to replace Ms Cassar Bellizzi, given her expectations and situation.

This amounts to “a limited degree of discrimination”, the tribunal ruled.

Weight was also given to a reference letter given to her upon termination, which said, among other things, that she had been offered a full-time job she could not accept “due to family commitments”.

When liquidating the damages suffered, the tribunal considered the fact that she had found another job within days.

Lawyers Veronique Dalli and Roberta Buhagiar appeared for Ms Cassar Bellizzi.