Back to the wall: changed duties for business survival were not constructive dismissal: Camilleri v Bortex Clothing Industry

Camilleri v Bortex is an older Industrial Tribunal decision that is still relied on, including by the Tribunal in Spiteri v Malta Gaming Authority in 2023. Its formulation of constructive dismissal, an employee unreasonably put with his back to the wall, runs through later Maltese decisions.

Facts

Camilleri had worked for the company for 21 years, the last twelve as Purchasing Manager, without a written contract. As production moved abroad, first to China and then to the group’s plant in Tunisia, travel became part of the work of the whole management team. In November 2011 he was asked to take on permanent oversight of the raw materials warehouse at the Tunisian plant, with regular visits.

He objected in writing on two grounds: that the added duty was more than a full-time job on top of an already overloaded role, and that he was unwilling to work in that country. A director told him that if he persisted there could be consequences. The company offered him an assistant, which would also reduce his visits, and asked him to reconsider. He resigned in December 2011, worked most of his notice and claimed constructive dismissal.

The test

The Tribunal began from the principle that whoever alleges must prove, and that the case must be looked at objectively. Constructive dismissal means that although on the face of it the employee left of his own accord, he did so because the employer unreasonably put him with his back to the wall, to the point that he had no other way but to leave. The matters must be serious, not frivolous. In such a case the end of employment is not truly voluntary: it is the employer who brought about the resignation.

The decision

The Tribunal accepted that the company’s move abroad was not capricious but vital to its survival, and that workers at every level had to adapt. Records of travel showed that many employees, including the Managing Director, travelled regularly. Camilleri had himself travelled to China and, at first, to Tunisia without objection.

Of his two objections, the Tribunal found that the second, his unwillingness to work in that country, was the real reason for his resignation. The company had tried to meet the first by offering help. It could not give up its right and duty to manage the business by bowing to an employee’s refusal to go where the work now was. The claim was rejected as an unjustified resignation rather than a constructive dismissal, with costs against the employee.

Significance

The decision is a reminder that constructive dismissal protects employees from unreasonable conduct, not from every unwelcome change. Where a business genuinely restructures, applies the change across the team and offers to ease its impact, an employee who refuses and resigns will struggle to show a serious breach. Contrast Manicolo v Broadcasting Authority, where responsibilities were removed over years as part of treatment the Court of Appeal found lacked humanity.

Related: Constructive dismissal in Malta · Spiteri v Malta Gaming Authority · Restructuring advisory · Bonello v OZO Services