Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the procedures applicable for the examination of allegations of anti-union dismissals by public officers, port workers and public transport workers given that those categories are excluded from the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal pursuant to section 75(1) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act 2002 (EIRA). The Committee had noted from the Government’s report that public officers have the right to appeal to the Public Service Commission, an independent body (the members are appointed by the President of Malta acting on the advice of the Prime Minister given after a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and they cannot be removed except for inability or misbehaviour causes) established under section 109 of the Constitution of Malta. The Committee also notes from the Government’s report that the Public Service Commission’s primary role is to ensure that disciplinary action taken against public officers is fair, prompt and effective. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, with regard to cases of anti-union dismissal, whether the Public Service Commission is empowered to grant such compensatory relief – including reinstatement and back pay awards – as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee also once again requests the Government to indicate the procedures applicable for the examination of allegations of anti‑union dismissals of port workers and public transport workers.

Articles 2 and 3. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated so as to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of acts of interference, as well as sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts given that the EIRA does not expressly protect employers’ and workers’ organizations from acts of interference by one another, in each other’s affairs. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report, the measures taken or contemplated so as to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of acts of interference, as well as sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to amending section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act, so as to ensure that this provision: (i) does not render automatically null and void any provisions in existing collective agreements which grant workers the right to recover public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday; and (ii) does not preclude voluntary negotiations in the future over the issue of granting workers the right to recover national or public holidays which fall on a Saturday or Sunday on the basis of a collective agreement (see 342nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 2447, paragraph 752). The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to amending section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the procedures applicable for the examination of allegations of anti-union dismissals by public officers, port workers and public transport workers given that those categories are excluded from the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal pursuant to section 75(1) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act 2002 (EIRA). The Committee notes from the Government’s report that public officers have the right to appeal to the Public Service Commission, an independent body (the members are appointed by the President of Malta acting on the advice of the Prime Minister given after a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and they cannot be removed except for inability or misbehaviour causes) established under section 109 of the Constitution of Malta. The Committee also notes from the Government’s report that the Public Service Commission’s primary role is to ensure that disciplinary action taken against public officers is fair, prompt and effective. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, with regard to cases of anti-union dismissal, whether the Public Service Commission is empowered to grant such compensatory relief – including reinstatement and back pay awards – as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee also once again requests the Government to indicate the procedures applicable for the examination of allegations of anti‑union dismissals of port workers and public transport workers.

Articles 2 and 3. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated so as to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of acts of interference, as well as sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts given that the EIRA does not expressly protect employers’ and workers’ organizations from acts of interference by one another, in each other’s affairs. Noting with regret that no observation is provided on this matter in the Government’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report, the measures taken or contemplated so as to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of acts of interference, as well as sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to amending section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act, so as to ensure that this provision: (i) does not render automatically null and void any provisions in existing collective agreements which grant workers the right to recover public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday; and (ii) does not preclude voluntary negotiations in the future over the issue of granting workers the right to recover national or public holidays which fall on a Saturday or Sunday on the basis of a collective agreement (see 342nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 2447, paragraph 752). The Committee, noting with regret that no information is provided in this respect, once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to amending section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to clarify the procedures for the examination of allegations of anti-union dismissals by public officers, port workers and public transport workers given that these categories of workers are excluded from the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal pursuant to section 75(1) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act 2002 (EIRA). Noting with regret that the Government’s report does not provide information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the procedures applicable for the examination of allegations of anti-union dismissals by public officers, port workers and public transport workers.

Articles 2 and 3. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had observed that the EIRA did not expressly protect employers’ and workers’ organizations from acts of interference by one another, nor did it provide for a rapid and effective appeals procedure or sanctions in the case of breach as is required to ensure compatibility with the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 232). While noting the Government’s indication that section 2 of the EIRA includes in the definition of “trade dispute” a dispute between “employers and workers” and “workers and workers”, so that, if an act of interference is alleged, any one of the parties can refer the matter to the industrial tribunal, the Committee notes that there is no explicit prohibition of acts of interference in the EIRA. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of acts of interference, as well as sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2447 with regard to the need to amend section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act so as to ensure that this provision: (i) does not render automatically null and void any provisions in existing collective agreements which grant workers the right to recover public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday; and (ii) does not preclude voluntary negotiations in the future over the issue of granting workers the right to recover national or public holidays which fall on a Saturday or Sunday on the basis of a collective agreement (see 342nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 752). Noting that the Government’s report does not contain any information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to amending section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether collective bargaining with trade unions representing less than 50 per cent of employees is possible, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s report according to which nothing in the law precludes employers from negotiating with unions representing less than 50 per cent of employees.

In its previous observations, the Committee had noted with concern that section 74 of the EIRA entitles the Minister to refer an unresolved trade dispute to the industrial tribunal at the request of one party and that the industrial tribunal’s decision in this matter will be binding. The Committee had also noted that, pursuant to section 80 of the EIRA, in its capacity to decide trade disputes, the industrial tribunal is obliged to take into consideration the Government’s social and economic policies and plans. The Committee recalls that, except in the case of public servants engaged in the administration of the State or essential services in the strict sense of the term, it is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements established in the Convention, and thus the autonomy of the bargaining parties, for binding arbitration to be imposed by the authorities at the request of one party (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 257). The Committee points out an observation to the Government on this point under Convention No. 87.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to clarify the procedures for the examination of allegations of anti-union dismissals by public officers, port workers and public transport workers given that these categories of workers are excluded from the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal pursuant to section 75(1) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act 2002 (EIRA). Noting with regret that the Government’s report does not provide information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the procedures applicable for the examination of allegations of anti-union dismissals by public officers, port workers and public transport workers.

Articles 2 and 3. Protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had observed that the EIRA did not expressly protect employers’ and workers’ organizations from acts of interference by one another, nor did it provide for a rapid and effective appeals procedure or sanctions in the case of breach as is required to ensure compatibility with the Convention (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 232). While noting the Government’s indication that section 2 of the EIRA includes in the definition of “trade dispute” a dispute between “employers and workers” and “workers and workers”, so that, if an act of interference is alleged, any one of the parties can refer the matter to the industrial tribunal, the Committee notes that there is no explicit prohibition of acts of interference in the EIRA. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of acts of interference, as well as sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee took note of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2447 with regard to the need to amend section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act so as to ensure that this provision: (i) does not render automatically null and void any provisions in existing collective agreements which grant workers the right to recover public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday; and (ii) does not preclude voluntary negotiations in the future over the issue of granting workers the right to recover national or public holidays which fall on a Saturday or Sunday on the basis of a collective agreement (see 342nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 752). Noting that the Government’s report does not contain any information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to amending section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act.

In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether collective bargaining with trade unions representing less then 50 per cent of employees is possible, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s report according to which nothing in the law precludes employers from negotiating with unions representing less than 50 per cent of employees.

In its previous observations, the Committee had noted with concern that section 74 of the EIRA entitles the Minister to refer an unresolved trade dispute to the industrial tribunal at the request of one party and that the industrial tribunal’s decision in this matter will be binding. The Committee had also noted that, pursuant to section 80 of the EIRA, in its capacity to decide trade disputes, the industrial tribunal is obliged to take into consideration the Government’s social and economic policies and plans. The Committee recalls that, except in the case of public servants engaged in the administration of the State or essential services in the strict sense of the term, it is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements established in the Convention, and thus the autonomy of the bargaining parties, for binding arbitration to be imposed by the authorities at the request of one party (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 257). The Committee addresses a request to the Government on this point under Convention No. 87.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled that the Convention required legislation or practice to provide ways to remedy difficulties resulting from placing on workers the burden of proving that the act in question occurred as a result of anti-union discrimination, for example by placing on the employer the onus of proving that the act of alleged anti-union discrimination was connected with questions other than trade union matters, or establishing a presumption in the worker’s favour (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 217 and 218). The Committee again requests the Government to indicate whether in practice the onus is on the worker to prove that a dismissal pursuant to section 36(14) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, 2002 (EIRA) was for reasons of anti-union discrimination.

2. The Committee had further noted that it appeared that the protection against dismissal on the grounds of anti-union discrimination, contained in section 36(14) of the EIRA, only relates to the possibility of dismissing a worker without notice but with good and sufficient cause, while pursuant to section 36(11) workers on fixed-term contracts may be dismissed before the expiration of their contract, upon payment set out in the legislation, whether with or without cause. The Committee again requests the Government to clarify whether this is so in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

1. Comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The Committee notes the comments made by the ICFTU in a communication dated 10 August 2006 on the application of the Convention. The comments concern compulsory arbitration and the Public Holidays Act infringing upon provisions of collective agreements on holidays. The Committee points out that this question has been dealt with by the Committee on Freedom of Association which, in its recommendation, requested the Government to amend section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act so as to ensure that this provisions: (i) does not render automatically null and void any provisions in existing collective agreements which grant workers the right to recover public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday; and (ii) does not preclude voluntary negotiations in the future over the issue of granting workers the right to recover national or public holidays which fall on a Saturday or Sunday on the basis of a collective agreement (see 342nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 752). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee had observed that pursuant to section 75(1) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act 2002 (EIRA), alleged unfair dismissals of certain categories of workers are excluded from the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal and dealt with under separate legislation. The Committee asks again the Government to provide clarification of the procedures in place in relation to allegations of dismissal for reasons of anti-union discrimination for public officers, port workers and public transport workers.

3. Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had observed that the EIRA did not expressly protect employers’ and workers’ organizations from acts of interference by one another, nor did it provide a rapid and effective appeal procedure or sanctions in the case of breach as is required to ensure compatibility with the Convention (see General Survey 1994, paragraph 232). The Committee again requests the Government to take measures in order that the legislation prohibits and sanctions acts of interference in a sufficiently dissuasive way.

4. Article 4 of the Convention. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the information provided by the Government that unions representing more then 50 per cent of employees or workers in any given establishment are normally granted recognition by employers, and eventually are invited to negotiate collective agreements governing the employees of that establishment. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate whether collective bargaining with trade unions representing less then 50 per cent of the employees is possible, at least on behalf of their own members.

5. In its previous observations, the Committee had noted with concern that section 74 of the EIRA entitles the minister to refer an unresolved trade dispute to the industrial tribunal at the request of one party and that the industrial tribunal’s decision in this matter will be binding. The Committee had also noted that pursuant to section 80 of the EIRA, in its capacity to decide trade disputes, the industrial tribunal is obliged to take into consideration the Government’s social and economic policies and plans. The Committee recalls that, except in the case of public servants engaged in the administration of the State or essential services in the strict sense of the word, it is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements established in the Convention, and thus the autonomy of the bargaining parties, for binding arbitration to be imposed by the authorities at the request of one party (see General Survey 1994, paragraph 257). The Committee again requests the Government to consider amending these provisions to ensure the compatibility of its legislation with the requirements of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the newly enacted Employment and Industrial Relations Act, 2002 (EIRA). In this regard, the Committee wishes to make the following points.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 36(14) of the EIRA states that "a good and sufficient cause" for dismissal of a worker shall not include membership of a trade union and that section 26 prohibits discriminatory treatment on the basis of membership in a trade union or in an employers’ organization. The Committee further notes that sections 30 and 75 give the Industrial Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to hear complaints of discriminatory treatment and unfair dismissal. In this regard, the Committee observes that:

1.  Pursuant to section 75(1) of the EIRA, alleged unfair dismissals of certain workers are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and dealt with under separate legislation; in this regard, the Committee asks the Government to provide clarification of the procedure in law and practice in relation to allegations of dismissal for reasons of anti-union discrimination for public officers, port workers and public transport workers.

2.  The Committee further recalls that the Convention requires legislation or practice to provide ways to remedy difficulties resulting from placing on workers the burden of proving that the act in question occurred as a result of anti-union discrimination, for example by placing on the employer the onus of proving that the act of alleged anti-union discrimination was connected with questions other than trade union matters, or establishing a presumption in the worker’s favour (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 217 and 218). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether in practice the onus is on the worker to prove that a dismissal pursuant to section 36(14) of the EIRA was for reasons of anti-union discrimination.

3.  The Committee further notes that it appears that the protection against dismissal on the grounds of anti-union discrimination, contained in section 36(14) of the EIRA, only relates to the ability to dismiss a worker without notice and, in particular, pursuant to section 36(11) workers on fixed-term contracts may be dismissed before the expiration of their contract, upon a payment set out in the legislation, but without due reason. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether this is so in practice.

Articles 2 and 3. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that sections 63 and 64 of the EIRA provide for the immunity of trade unions and employers’ organizations against acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes and that section 65 provides for peaceful picketing. The Committee observes, however, that the EIRA does not expressly protect workers’ and employers’ organizations from acts of interference by one another, nor does it provide a rapid and effective appeal procedure or sanctions in the case of breach, as is required to ensure compatibility with the Convention (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 232). The Committee asks the Government to clarify its intentions in this regard and, in particular, to indicate whether there are any procedures in place to ensure that Maltese workers’ and employers’ organizations do not interfere in each other’s activities.

Article 4. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that unions representing more than 50 per cent of employees or workers in any given establishment are normally granted recognition by employers, and eventually are invited to negotiate collective agreements governing the employees of that establishment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether collective bargaining with trade unions representing less than 50 per cent of employees is possible, at least on behalf of their own members.

Furthermore, the Committee notes with concern that section 74 of the EIRA entitles the Minister to refer an unresolved trade dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at the request of one party and that the Industrial Tribunal’s decision in this matter will be binding. The Committee also notes that pursuant to section 80 of the EIRA, in its capacity to decide trade disputes, the Industrial Tribunal is obliged to take into consideration the Government’s social and economic policies, including the requirements of the national development plan, and endeavour to ensure that its award, decision or advice is in furtherance of such policies and plans. As it is recalled that, except in the case of public service or essential services in the strict sense of the word, it is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements established in the Convention, and thus the autonomy of the bargaining parties, for binding arbitration to be imposed by the authorities at the request of one party (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 257), the Committee requests the Government to consider amending these provisions to ensure the compatibility of its legislation with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

1. Referring to its previous comments relating to Case No. 1349 examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association, which concerned a collective dispute between the Government and the Movement of United Teachers, the Committee notes with satisfaction that, following its recommendation, the Government has now fully refunded the salaries of the 31 worker-students with respect to their October 1984 strike. The Committee also notes with interest that the new Government immediately set out to remedy the adverse situation of the teachers who had been the object of compulsory transfers following their strike in October/November 1984, that the affected teachers were individually consulted and that their wishes were taken into consideration, all the while taking into account the exigencies of service.

2. As regards the establishment of the Joint Negotiating Council for the public sector, provided for by section 25 of the Industrial Relations Act No. 30 of 1976, the Committee notes with interest that the Government will study its recommendation, together with other possibilities, in conjunction with the unions concerned in order to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to this problem. The Committee recalls that Article 4 of the Convention places on the Government a positive duty to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation of collective agreements between the State (the employer) and this category of workers (public servants not engaged in the administration of the State). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in its future reports of the progress achieved as concerns the Joint Negotiating Council.