Refusing unreasonable new terms is not redundancy

The Industrial Tribunal decided J.G. vs Melita Power Diesel Limited on 14 April 2026. Chairperson Doreen Parnis held that a diver dismissed as redundant, at the meeting where he refused new and more onerous terms, had been dismissed against the law. The tribunal awarded him €7,500 in compensation.

The facts

The employee worked as a diver for the company under an indefinite contract from November 2021. His contract linked a pay rise to obtaining a commercial diving certificate. During 2022 and 2023 the Melita Marine Group, to which the company belongs, set up a commercial diving section within Harbour Management Limited.

From July 2023 the parties negotiated a new contract that would move his employment to that company and train him as a tender diver, the first step towards commercial diving. The draft required him to stay underwater as long as needed in any conditions and to be ready to leave the country within three hours, on call at all times.

While he was on sick leave after an injury at work, his manager told him to come in or be dismissed. At a meeting on 1 November 2023, called for him to sign the new contract, he refused the changed terms and the chief executive told him he was dismissed. A letter later gave redundancy as the reason.

A group manager accepted in cross-examination that the decision had been taken before the meeting and that the termination letter was already prepared.

The company argued that it no longer needed scuba divers, that nobody replaced him at the company, and that by refusing conditions essential to the new role he had made himself redundant. Its submissions accepted that the manner of the dismissal was not ideal.

What the court held

The tribunal found that the contract gave no sign that the job would end. The commercial certificate was tied to a pay rise, not to keeping the job, and the parties had been negotiating a continuation of his employment with differences still to agree.

It held that an employer who reshapes a job must equip the existing employee for it: "jekk min iħaddem ibiddel in-natura tax-xogħol tali min diġa’ qiegħed jaħdem magħha jista’ jkompli jaħdem fi ħdanha, għandha tipprovdi l-għodda neċessarji kollha" (if an employer changes the nature of the work so that those already working with it can continue, it must provide all the necessary tools). That meant training and conditions that put health and safety first.

On redundancy, the tribunal referred to article 36(4) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta), under which the last employee engaged is the first to go. It also referred to article 36(3), under which a redundant employee is re-engaged if the same post becomes available within a year.

The tribunal considered that other people had been engaged within that period in the post he was already treated as holding once talks about it began.

The tribunal accepted that an employee has an implied duty to adapt to changes in the job, but only where the change is reasonable, such as a move from typewriters to computers. It held that the changes proposed here could not be considered reasonable.

The tribunal said it was not expert in the conditions divers work in, and no evidence on them was produced. It therefore resolved the doubt in the employee's favour, as the weaker party when terms are negotiated, and found that terms so vague did not protect his health and safety.

It called the process that led to the dismissal defective, and said that threatening a worker on sick leave with dismissal was unacceptable. In a remark it said did not affect the decision, it noted that an injury at work calls for injury leave, recorded on the NI-30 form, not sick leave.

The tribunal ordered the company to pay €7,500 within one month.

Why it matters

An employer that restructures cannot fall back on redundancy where the tribunal finds the real trigger was the employee's refusal of new terms, least of all when the termination letter is ready before the meeting. Employers who change a role should offer training and specific, reasonable terms, and should expect doubt about safety-related terms to be resolved against them.

Where it sits

The case applies the unfair dismissal rules of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act. The tribunal tested a stated redundancy against the facts and against the order and re-engagement rules in article 36(3) and (4), and weighed it with the employee's implied duty to accept reasonable change.

The tribunal named no Maltese judgment. For the implied duty to adapt, it cited an English decision reported in 1984, taken from a standard English employment law textbook. Otherwise it decided on the articles and the evidence.

Source

Industrial Tribunal, decision 2026/3170, 14 April 2026.