Unfair Dismissal in Malta: How to Challenge It and Win

You have four months from the date you were dismissed to file a claim with Malta’s Industrial Tribunal — and after that, the door closes permanently, no matter how unjust the dismissal was. Filing costs nothing, and you do not need a lawyer to do it. What you do need is to understand what “good and sufficient cause” actually means before you decide whether you have a case worth pursuing.

What counts as unfair dismissal in Malta

Under the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (EIRA), Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta, an employer can only lawfully terminate an indefinite employment contract for good and sufficient cause, or on grounds of redundancy. Dismissal without one of these justifications is unfair, and Maltese courts and the Industrial Tribunal have consistently treated dismissal as a measure of last resort — not the first response to a problem with an employee’s conduct or performance.

In practice, this means an employer who dismisses an employee without first issuing a warning, following a disciplinary process, or otherwise giving the employee a genuine opportunity to address the conduct in question, is at serious risk of the dismissal being found unfair even where the underlying conduct complaint had some merit. The Tribunal weighs both positive and negative aspects of an employee’s record, and a unilateral decision to terminate, without process, is one of the most commonly successful grounds for a claim.

The EIRA defines unfair dismissal by reference to specific scenarios rather than a single open-ended standard, covering situations such as dismissal for a reason that is not genuinely related to the employee’s conduct or capability, dismissal that amounts to discriminatory treatment, and dismissal in retaliation for the employee asserting a legal right, among others. This matters practically because a dismissal can be unfair even where an employer genuinely believed they had good cause — the Tribunal examines the substance of what actually happened and the process followed, not simply whether the employer subjectively felt justified at the time.

The four-month deadline: no exceptions

An employee who believes they were unfairly dismissed must file a complaint with the Industrial Tribunal within four months of the date of dismissal. This deadline runs automatically from the date of termination — not from when a grievance process concludes, not from when the employee seeks legal advice, and not from any other later trigger. Missing it means losing the right to claim entirely, regardless of how strong the underlying case might have been.

Free conciliation before you file

Before escalating to a formal Tribunal claim, the Department for Industrial and Employment Relations (DIER) offers free conciliation to both employees and employers. This is not a mandatory step, but it is strongly recommended, since many disputes resolve at this stage without the time and formality of a Tribunal hearing. Employees can reach DIER’s conciliation service directly, and employers have a separate contact line, reflecting that either side can initiate the process.

Filing and hearing your claim

1. Consider free conciliation through DIER before filing, if there is a realistic chance of informal resolution.
2. File the unfair dismissal complaint with the Industrial Tribunal within four months of the dismissal date.
3. Both sides present their case at a scheduled hearing; you may bring witnesses and documentary evidence.
4. The Tribunal determines whether the dismissal was carried out with good and sufficient cause.
5. If the complaint is upheld, the Tribunal decides on remedies: reinstatement, re-engagement, compensation, or a combination.

The Industrial Tribunal is free to use, and employees are entitled to represent themselves without engaging a lawyer, which makes it considerably more accessible than pursuing a claim through the ordinary civil courts. That said, self-representation does not mean the process is informal in substance — the Tribunal still expects evidence, a clear account of events, and an understanding of what “good and sufficient cause” requires, which is exactly where professional advice, even limited to case preparation rather than full representation, tends to make the most practical difference.

The Tribunal has exclusive competence over unfair dismissal claims, alongside discriminatory treatment, breaches of equal pay for work of equal value, victimisation and harassment claims arising from employment. Hearings are generally conducted in public, though the Tribunal can hold private sittings where the circumstances warrant it — for example, where the evidence involves sensitive personal or medical information that a public hearing would otherwise expose unnecessarily.

Reinstatement, re-engagement or compensation

Under Article 81 of the EIRA, where the Tribunal finds a dismissal unfair, the available remedies are reinstatement (returning the employee to their former role), re-engagement (a comparable role), or compensation — and the Tribunal has clarified, in a notable 2025 Court of Appeal decision involving the Malta Financial Services Authority, that both reinstatement and compensation can be awarded together in appropriate circumstances, rather than the two remedies being mutually exclusive by default.

This case-by-case approach cuts both ways. An employee in a role with many comparable openings elsewhere in the local market may recover meaningfully less than one whose skills are narrowly specialised, even where the two dismissals were, on paper, equally unjustified. Anyone building a claim should therefore document not just the circumstances of the dismissal itself, but the practical impact on their job search afterward — rejected applications, reduced income in interim work, and the specific characteristics of their sector that make comparable roles scarce, since this evidence is what actually drives the size of a compensation award, not the dismissal alone.

Fixed-term contracts: a different set of rules

The Industrial Tribunal’s jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims extends to both indefinite and fixed-term contracts, but the underlying rules differ. If an employer ends a fixed-term contract early without good and sufficient cause, the employee is generally entitled to compensation equal to half the wages that would have been payable for the remaining, unexpired duration of the contract. Fixed-term contracts are also generally expected to run for at least six months, unless objective reasons justify a shorter term, and may not exceed four years — rules aimed at preventing fixed-term arrangements from being used simply to avoid the protections that come with indefinite employment.

Redundancy dismissals: separate procedural rules

Genuine redundancy is a lawful ground for dismissal, but it comes with its own procedural requirements, and getting these wrong can itself turn a lawful redundancy into an unfair dismissal claim. An employer must notify employee representatives in writing, copy the Director of DIER, begin consultations within seven working days, and provide a written statement covering the statutory information the regulations require. As a rule, redundancy dismissals cannot take effect before 30 days from notification, though the Director may shorten this period or extend it by a further 30 days in exceptional cases. Failing to follow this process is itself an offence, punishable by a fine for each employee affected — separately from any unfair dismissal exposure the employer may also face.

This dual exposure is worth understanding for employees facing a redundancy they suspect is not genuine. Even where an employer labels a dismissal “redundancy,” the label alone does not make it lawful — the Tribunal can and does examine whether the role was actually eliminated, or whether “redundancy” was used as a pretext to remove a specific individual while the underlying work continued, whether performed by someone else or simply redistributed among remaining staff. An employee who suspects their redundancy was not genuine should treat the same four-month filing deadline as applying equally to a disguised dismissal dressed up as redundancy, not only to dismissals labelled as being for cause.

A worked example

Consider an employee in Birkirkara dismissed abruptly after a single disagreement with a manager, with no prior warning and no disciplinary process. The employer’s stated reason is “poor attitude,” but there is no documented history of complaints, and no opportunity was given to address the concern before termination. This is a strong candidate for a successful unfair dismissal claim, precisely because Maltese Tribunal practice treats dismissal as a last resort — a single incident, without a documented pattern or a chance to respond, rarely amounts to good and sufficient cause on its own.

The employee files with the Industrial Tribunal within the four-month window, having first attempted free DIER conciliation without success. At the hearing, the absence of any warning letters or disciplinary record becomes the central issue — not really whether the underlying disagreement happened, but whether the employer followed a fair process before deciding to dismiss. If the Tribunal finds the dismissal unfair, it can order reinstatement, compensation reflecting lost income and the difficulty of finding comparable work, or both together, depending on how the specific facts of the case are weighed.

Frequently asked questions

Conclusion

Most people who come to an unfair dismissal claim focus on whether the reason they were given feels fair. The Tribunal focuses on something narrower and more procedural: whether the employer actually followed a fair process before deciding to dismiss, and whether “good and sufficient cause” was genuinely established, not just asserted. An employer who skips warnings and disciplinary steps is often more exposed than the substance of the underlying complaint would suggest — which means the strongest evidence in many successful claims is not proof the employee did nothing wrong, but proof the employer never gave them a real chance to put it right.

For anyone weighing whether a claim is worth pursuing, the four-month deadline is the one fact that should drive the timeline of every other decision. Gathering evidence, attempting conciliation, and consulting a lawyer are all worth doing properly — but none of them should be allowed to eat into the filing window itself, since a well-prepared case filed on day 130 is still worthless if it should have been filed by day 120.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Unfair dismissal outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case; consult a licensed lawyer before the four-month filing deadline.