Serious misconduct and the disciplinary procedure: Voortman v VistaJet

The Tribunal accepted that a pilot had committed gross misconduct with serious safety implications. It nevertheless found his dismissal unfair because VistaJet had not followed the disciplinary safeguards it had undertaken to provide. The misconduct remained important to the amount of compensation.

The conduct and the dismissal

Voortman joined VistaJet as a First Officer on CL350 aircraft in July 2022. He was dismissed on 7 September 2023 following an investigation into smoking in prohibited areas, including an incident inside an aircraft’s nosewheel well at Frankfurt Airport.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of repeated breaches and held that the Frankfurt incident and an earlier incident constituted gross misconduct. It also accepted the seriousness of the safety and reputational risks. The finding of unfair dismissal did not exonerate the employee or treat aviation safety as a minor disciplinary concern.

An admission did not exhaust the right to respond

The procedural failure lay in the opportunity to defend himself, obtain assistance from a person of his trust and use the employer’s appeal process. VistaJet’s disciplinary procedure required the dismissal letter to identify the right of appeal and the person to whom it should be addressed. The company had not complied with that requirement.

The Tribunal considered the appeal meaningful even where the conduct itself had been admitted. An employee might seek a lesser sanction rather than contest whether the incident occurred. The opportunity to address that question remained part of due process.

VistaJet relied on contractual provisions identifying breaches of safety rules and company policies as grounds for termination. Its disciplinary procedure also reserved the right to terminate without notice under the contract or applicable law. The Tribunal did not accept those provisions as disposing of the procedural problem. It considered that they required prudent application rather than treating every breach as automatically warranting dismissal.

Compensation reflected the misconduct

The Tribunal awarded €18,750, equivalent to five months of gross basic salary. It expressly treated the gross misconduct and the relatively short employment as factors substantially reducing compensation. It also considered age and opportunities for alternative employment in aviation.

The outcome therefore contains two distinct assessments. The process made the dismissal unfair, while the employee’s conduct materially reduced the financial consequence. The award is not a benchmark for procedural defects in every safety-sensitive dismissal.

Significance for senior and regulated roles

For a dismissal involving safety, compliance or professional responsibility, this decision shows why establishing the underlying misconduct may not answer the whole employment claim. The contractual procedure, the opportunity to respond and the route for challenging the sanction still require attention.

In exit negotiations, the same distinction affects valuation. Strong evidence of misconduct can coexist with exposure arising from a deficient process, and the misconduct may materially affect compensation. Neither side can assess that exposure reliably by concentrating on only one part of the case.

The judgment concerns an employment dismissal and the employer’s disciplinary procedure. It does not determine the withdrawal of a pilot’s licence, fitness for a regulated appointment or a regulator’s independent powers. Those questions should not be inferred from the Tribunal’s finding that this dismissal was unfair.

Related: Good and sufficient cause · Fenech v MFSA · Camilleri v Allied Newspapers