A judge has upheld a woman’s request to stop the bank where she is employed from declaring her post redundant.
Sandra Diacono, 49, informed the court she was told by Deutsche Bank Malta Ltd she was being made redundant following a reorganisation exercise.
Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima accepted the woman’s argument that the bank had no legal grounds to make her redundant, especially since her role as company secretary could not be abolished because it was a legal requisite.
The court also upheld the argument that Ms Diacono would suffer irremediable prejudice if she had to be made redundant and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to find a similar job at her age.
Ms Diacono joined the bank in 2007 and, a year later, became assistant to the director. In 2010, she was promoted to company secretary.
The court finds the termination of employment extremely dubious
She told the court that in February, senior bank official Andrew Bartlet called her from the UK, telling her the company would not be paying bonuses this year and that her role as company secretary was being abolished.
On November 4, chief executive Ruben Attard officially informed her about the redundancy and gave her eight weeks’ notice. He also told her the company wanted her to work for two weeks and she would be remunerated for the rest.
Ms Diacono asked for this to be put in writing and three days later received a draft compromise agreement through which she was asked to resign and renounce any of her rights. She said she was never informed in writing about her redundancy.
Mr Attard told the court that the internal restructuring was not only affecting Malta but several of the bank’s branches in Europe. According to a costing exercise, a company secretary based in Berlin was the cheapest option for the firm, he said.
In her judgment, Madam Justice Padovani Grima noted that Deutsche Bank Malta Limited and Deutsche Holdings Malta Limited between them posted a profit of €72 million. Moreover, according to Malta Financial Services Authority documents, Ms Diacono remained listed as company secretary and as one of the company’s official signatories.
“The court finds the termination of employment on the basis of redundancy debatable and extremely dubious, especially since, according to the firm’s articles of association, the position of company secretary is mandatory, more so because Ms Diacono is a signatory. It seems that the company is taking advantage of Ms Diacono’s name on official documents simply because of the law,” the judge said.
In view of this, the judge upheld Ms Diacono’s application for an injunction and ruled that the company cannot fire, sack or in any way terminate her employment nor change any of its conditions or the remuneration she received.