The First Hall of the Civil Court, presided over by Justice Silvio Meli, in the case ‘Frederick Attard v Malta International Airport plc and others’, on November 24, 2015, held, among other things, that the fact that there was a restricted list of two persons who could be appointed as chairman of the Board of Discipline and the Board of Appeal did not amount to a breach of the principles of natural justice.
In these proceedings the court had to decide whether Malta International Airport plc violated the collective agreement dated June 13, 2008 which it had signed with the General Workers’ Union.
Under the collective agreement, the chairman of the Board of Discipline and of the Board of Appeal had to be appointed by the MIA from an agreed list of persons with the union. As there were only two persons on the list, one person alternated with the other.
In this case, disciplinary action had been taken against Frederick Attard, an employee of MIA. MIA appointed its own adviser as member on the disciplinary board.
The Board of Discipline gave two decisions dated March 29, 2011, and June 18, 2011. The final decision by the board was delivered on January 31, 2012, and by the Board of Appeal on April 6, 2012.
Attard claimed that he suffered an injustice. He also proceeded to file proceedings before the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustice.
In these proceedings he requested the court:
• To declare that the MIA violated the collective agreement and the procedures regulating to the administration of discipline which formed an integral part of the collective agreement, as the boards had to observe the principles of natural justice;
• To revoke the decision of the boards of March 29, 2001, June 8, 2011, January 31 2012 and April 6, 2012; and
• To liquidate the damages suffered.
Anthony Degiovanni, appointed by MIA to sit on the Board of Appeal, contested the legal proceedings.
He submitted in reply that he was not the legitimate defendant, and had no legal relations with Attard. It was stated that the decisions of the boards were legitimate; that these decisions could only be appealed before the Industrial Tribunal, and that the principles of natural justice were observed in the circumstances.
MIA pleaded in defence that Attard’s claims were unfounded as there was no breach of contractual obligations.
MIA maintained that it observed the collective agreement and there was no lack of impartiality or any lack of independence of the chairman of the boards.
MIA had no obligation to observe the principles of natural justice. Under the collective agreement it was the Board of Discipline and the Board of Appeal which had to observe the principles of natural justice
The disciplinary proceedings under the collective agreement imposed no obligations upon it and that Attard’s claims were based on incorrect grounds.
MIA disputed being responsible for damages, as it did not violate any obligation, nor did it act negligently. It said that the person who it appointed as chairman of the board was mentioned on the list agreed with the union and that it acted in accordance with the disciplinary procedure under the collective agreement.
MIA added that, from February 2011, Attard never raised this issue during the proceedings before the boards. It insisted that it acted correctly and that the collective agreement was a valid contract and enforceable between the parties.
MIA reiterated that it did not violate any principles of natural justice, as the disciplinary board and the Board of Appeal were constituted in accordance with the collective agreement. It was not relevant whether Attard was a member of the GWU. The purpose of the union was to protect workers irrespective of whether they were members.
The appointment of the chairman and the members of the boards did not violate principles of natural justice and nor the requisites of independence and impartiality. In this respect, there was no reason to cancel the decisions of the Board of Discipline and the Board of Appeal, argued MIA.
As regards damages, it said that Attard had to substantiate these allegations with proof.
The other defendants – Charles Magro, Alfred Mallia Milanes and Franco Masini – also contested the legal proceedings and asked to be freed from them. They denied any breach of the collective agreement.
The First Hall of the Civil Court considered that Attard was aggrieved by the fact that only two persons were on the list to be appointed as chairmen of the Board of Discipline and on the Board of Appeal.
However, this was what was agreed with the GWU, said the court. The Board of Discipline had to be composed of three persons: one member appointed by MIA, the other by the union and the chairman by MIA from a list of agreed persons.
Attard complained that one member on the board was an adviser to MIA.
The court held that such member was not disqualified to act on the board. MIA was free to appoint any person whom it felt to be suitable as a member of the board. MIA had no obligation to observe the principles of natural justice.
Under the collective agreement it was the Board of Discipline and the Board of Appeal which had to observe the principles of natural justice.
MIA was given a certain amount of latitude to select persons on the board. This right clearly emerged from the collective agreement, and the persons whom MIA chose were legitimate and acceptable.
The court said that Attard did not bring any proof of any breach of the collective agreement, and only raised this issue when the dispute was nearing conclusion.
The court considered further that Attard alleged that one member had passed a remark against him. However, this was not sufficient to prove a breach of natural justice, pointed out the court.
It resulted that Attard had no complaints against the acts of the chairmen of the boards but only that there was a restricted list of two persons who ended up reviewing each other’s decisions. Besides, it noted that the parties of the collective agreement intended appointing other persons on the list.
For these reasons, on November 24, 2015, the First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed Attard’s requests, in absence of any proof of any violation, and accepted MIA’s and all the other defendants pleas of defence.
Dr Karl Grech Orr is a partner at Ganado Adovates.