Michael Fenech was found guilty by the Criminal Court of having phoned Police HQ and said that there was a bomb at the airport when the world was still reeling from the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre.

In the subsequent intensive search for the alleged bomb on the day, Fenech

was himself deployed to join in the search, clearly persevering in his act

of deliberate deception.

He was charged and accused of reporting an offence that had not taken place. The Criminal Court had found Fenech guilty and sentenced him to a six months’ imprisonment suspended sentence.

Following this conclusion by the Court, the company made its own assessment of the situation in terms of the Collective Agreement and, given the nature of the offence, especially within the context of those days and the highly sensitive situation at the airport, concluded that Fenech’s job should be terminated.

The Collective Agreement allows an employee the right to be heard by the board of directors before the decision regarding his dismissal is finalized. This right was granted to Fenech, after he had communicated his wish to be heard through his legal advisor.

However, on the date and the time appointed for the hearing, which had been communicated to Fenech’s legal advisor, neither Fenech nor his lawyer turned up. The board subsequently finalized the decision to dismiss Fenech.

Fenech felt aggrieved by this decision and appealed to the Industrial Tribunal. The tribunal decided that the right to a hearing had not been given to Fenech, although it was confirmed that the appointment for the board hearing had been duly communicated to Fenech’s legal advisor. On the basis of this finding alone, the tribunal ordered that Fenech be given back the post he held before.

MIA last week filed proceedings in the Civil Court to annul the Industrial Tribunal’s award. The writ was signed by Dr Andrew Borg-Cardona.

Reliable sources said the company could not, in the circumstances, accept such decision although it has every respect for the tribunal’s authority.

The legal basis for the request that the award of the tribunal be annulled is that the tribunal handed down a decision that went against the Collective Agreement itself, an instrument which has the force of law, despite the fact that the company had fulfilled its obligations according to the agreement.

The company argued that the order that Fenech be given back his post was unreasonable to the extent that it could not be allowed to stand, given the order effectively means that a person convicted of an act that had a direct bearing on the airport’s security was being allowed by the tribunal to be employed in the very same place that had been the target of his criminal act.