The legal angle: Why the Appeal Court ordered Allied Newspapers to pay journalist €171,000 for unfair dismissal

Aqra bil-Malti

Key Findings

• In its decision on 12 February 2025, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision that Camilleri was unfairly dismissed by Allied Newspapers, highlighting flaws in the disciplinary process and biased investigation.

• The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations against Camilleri and emphasised the employer’s burden to prove a “good and sufficient cause” for dismissal.

• Camilleri was awarded €171,569 in compensation for moral and financial damages, with the Court of Appeal affirming the importance of fair disciplinary procedures and rejecting Allied Newspapers’ arguments.

The case highlights critical issues surrounding fair disciplinary processes and employee rights.

First, the Tribunal found that the disciplinary process was flawed. The Times of Malta had breached the collective agreement, and Camilleri was not given a fair hearing before being dismissed.

Where the evidence of an alleged misconduct is not blatantly clearcut, then an employer must offer a fair procedure to allow the employee to know what he is being accused of, to understand the evidence being relied upon, and to present his defence.

In this case, Allied should have followed its collective agreement, which set the procedural rules, but it did not respect the procedures in their entirety. Notice of hearing was insufficient, and Camilleri was not allowed to be assisted.

Secondly, the Tribunal found that the investigation process was biased, with overlapping roles influencing the outcome. The same person (the editor) who claimed to have investigated, was the one who also prosecuted, and sat alongside those who decided Camilleri’s fate.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that, on the merits, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations against Camilleri, which related to unproven occurrences outside of the workplace.

The Tribunal reiterated the rule that it is the employer who carries the burden to prove that there was a “good and sufficient cause” to dismiss an employee. The employer cannot shift the burden onto the employee to prove his innocence, as Allied had expected from Camilleri within minutes of being charged.

During the case before the Tribunal, The Times editor, who had triggered the proceedings against Camilleri, argued that, as a journalist, he should not be forced to disclose his sources which he had supposedly relied on to trigger disciplinary action.

However, the Tribunal ruled that in the context of the disciplinary procedures, the editor was not acting in his capacity as a journalist but as a member of staff who made allegations against a colleague and thus should have, for the sake of fairness, undertaken a thorough investigation to corroborate what was alleged.

The Tribunal found that management at Allied Newspapers should have asked the editor to corroborate the allegations and should not have relied on an unknown source.

Equally, the Tribunal could not rely on mere hearsay and unverified statements, particularly when other evidence suggested that Ivan Camilleri had not done what had been alleged against him.

Compensation Awarded: Camilleri was awarded a noteworthy compensation of €171,569. This amount was calculated based on his average yearly wage over three years, adjusted for self-employment income, bonuses, and moral damages. The Tribunal acknowledged the significant moral and financial impact on Camilleri, including damage to his reputation and career prospects.

Appeal Decision: The Court of Appeal confirmed the Tribunal’s decision, agreeing that the termination was unfair and unjust and that the compensation awarded was appropriate, including the consideration of future losses and moral damages.

It also confirmed, in a separate ruling, that the Tribunal is also empowered to reduce the compensation award in the event of any contributory negligence by an employee which would contribute towards the termination.

A dismissal does not occur in a vacuum, but in the context of an employee’s employment, and if circumstances are brought in evidence to the attention of the Tribunal, then the Tribunal can take them into account when determining the compensation award.

The Court reiterated that it is the Tribunal that has the discretion to quantity the compensation. However, it did also look at the Tribunal’s considerations and, in so doing, confirmed that in this case, Camilleri “was affected by the dismissal, and its impact, and with the publicity that was given to the dismissal by the defendant company over a long time, and the Tribunal’s decision reflects this fact”.

The Court rejected Allied Newspapers’ arguments that the Tribunal focused too much on procedural issues and not enough on the substance of the allegations. Conversely, the Tribunal had clearly stated that it would first look at the procedural issues, and then at the merits of the case, as it did.

The Court emphasised the importance of following proper disciplinary procedures and ensuring that employees have a fair opportunity to defend themselves. It held that the Tribunal was right that Allied had acted in a very rushed manner and was determined to fire Camilleri before giving him a fair hearing.

Camilleri’s case underscores the critical importance of fair disciplinary processes and the need for concrete evidence when making serious allegations against employees.

Both the Industrial Tribunal and the Court of Appeal have sent a clear message about the standards expected in handling employee dismissals, ensuring that justice and fairness are upheld in the workplace.

This article was originally published by Fenech & Fenech Advocates and is being reproduced with their permission.