Court upholds casual worker’s termination of posting

The Civil Court rejected a request by Dorianne Borg to stop the government from terminating her job, ruling that the termination was not in violation of the applicant’s rights.

In December 2008, Borg was employed as a casual substitute clerk at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, until Assistant Principal Rita Bartolo returns to her post.

Her employment was also known as ‘back-to-back casual substitutes’. Her contract stated the employment was for the duration of a year but she was to be given a month’s notice prior to her termination. However, Borg’s contract kept being renewed annually up to August 2013, but was not given a renewal in writing.

On 10 March 2014, the applicant received an email saying that since Rita Bartolo had returned to office, her services were no longer required. The date of termination was noted as 18 March – a month after Bartolo resumed her work.

Borg filed a civil application requesting the court to issue a warrant of prohibitory inhibition against the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security, and the Director of Citizenship and Expatriate Affairs, precluding them from terminating her job.

The applicant claimed that since her contract had been repeatedly renewed on the basis of casual substitute, when in August 2013 she was not handed a contract to sign, her employment was converted to an indefinite contract.

Mr Justice Joseph Micallef noted that to request the issue of a warrant of prohibitory inhibition the applicant has to prove such warrant is requested to protect the individual’s rights, and the existence of such rights. “However Borg’s arguments fail to prove she had a legal right for her claim,” the judge said.

The court ruled that the terms of contract applied in Borg’s employment, from the beginning ruled, that her job was on casual basis and could not be converted to permanent employment.

Judge Micallef refused Borg’s application for a warrant of prohibitory injunction as the termination of her employment was not in violation of any of her rights.