Gay applicant turned down by Air Malta over 'nonchalant attitude', improper dress

This was one of the selected cases from the Annual Report of 2009 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman.

An Air Malta employee lodged a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman that he was subjected to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation when he was not selected for ab initio pilot training.

The complainant was aggrieved by this decision because besides the qualifications he possessed in engineering, he had also been employed with the airline in the engineering department for several years and he was also in possession of a private pilot’s licence.

His application to the training course was declined in January 2007 in favour of other candidates even though he claimed he was the best qualified for the job. When he sought an explanation he found that he was turned down by the selection board for two reasons. The first was that he was “improperly dressed” and that he was “over-confident and nonchalant” during his interview.

During his investigations, the Ombudsman found that the panel of management pilots unanimously rejected the complainant's application because of his "nonchalant" and "over-relaxed attitude" in comparison to the business-like attitude of the other candidates. "They expressed surprise at the allegation of discrimination, especially since they were unaware of the candidate’s sexual orientation at the time of the interview," the Ombudsman said.

The Ombudsman turned down the complaint, claiming there was no clear evidence to sustain the complainant was subjected to discrimination due to his sexual orientation. "There was no reason to doubt the declaration of the selection board that they were unaware of the complainant’s sexual orientation at the time of the interview."

In another selected case in the 2009 annual report, the Ombudsman claimed that seniority and experience does not are not always trump cards in the selection process.

The University Ombudsman received a complaint against the University of Malta by a consultant at a department at the Mater Dei Hospital, who alleged unfair treatment in the process to fill a post at the Medical School that was given to a junior colleague. Though the complainant asked the university for clarification on three separate occasions, a satisfactory response was not given.

In his investigation the Ombudsman found that the complainant’s application was turned down in June 2008 and the selected candidate was the Registrar in another department of Mater Dei Hospital while the second candidate was a junior trainee in his own department.

The complainant argued that his teaching and clinical experience exceeded the first two candidates considerably. He also found it difficult to believe that a candidate he had trained himself was included on the waiting list while he was left out.

The complainant sought out an explanation from the University on three occasions in August and November 2008 and April 2009, though after three inadequate responses from the Human Resources department he sought intervention from the University Ombudsman.

The selection board consisted of one of the University’s Pro-Rectors, a senior medical professor and a member of the University Council. It reported that board was unanimous in the selection of candidates saying that seniority in another institution does not automatically make a candidate the most appropriate to fill a lecturing post.

The university rejected the accusation that it did not provide the complainant with information that he requested as, though an official letter was not sent lengthy email correspondence was exchanged with the complainant and an offer by the Human Resources Department to hold a meeting with the complainant to explain the situation was never taken up.

The Ombudsman found that the University did not act in an incorrect manner and that seniority and experience were not the only criteria on which the selection board based its decision.

The complainants second grievance, namely that he received insufficient information about his concerns was another matter. The fact that he remained without a written reply remained a cause of concern as he was entitled to information of where he scored highly and where he fell short. The Ombudsman advised the university management to provide the required information as long as the details did not impinge on privacy rights of other candidates.

The Office of the Ombudsman was entrenched in the Constitution of Malta in 2007 and owes its roots to the Swedish system, which set up an office of the ombudsman in 1809 to undertake supervision, on behalf of Parliament, of the laws by judges and officers of the state.

Other high profile cases included in the Annual Report of 2009 include investigations into waiting lists at Mater Dei Hospital, the treatment of rejected asylum seekers by the marriage registrar and promotions at the Armed Forces of Malta.