Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Malta (Ratification: 1965)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report. It notes, in particular, the Government’s indication that the activities of the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations regarding conciliation and mediation have been consolidated through the approval and cooperation of the social partners.

The Committee is compelled, once again to recall that it has been commenting on the incompatibility between the Industrial Relations Act and the provisions of the Convention for more than 20 years and therefore regrets that no amendments have been made to date to improve voluntary procedures for the settlement of industrial disputes. The Committee points out that restrictions on strike action, in particular through the imposition of a compulsory arbitration procedure leading to a final award, which is binding on the parties concerned, constitutes a prohibition which seriously limits the means available to trade unions to further and defend the interest of their members, as well as their right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes, and is not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 153).

The Committee notes that according to the Government, Maltese law does not proscribe industrial action when a dispute is referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Committee, however, recalls the discrepancies between the legislation (sections 27-34 of the 1976 Industrial Relations Act) and the Convention relating to the discretionary powers of the Minister to impose compulsory arbitration. Since the decision of the Industrial Tribunal is binding and it can be given on application by one party to the dispute, and since it entails the prohibition of all recourse to strikes once it has been issued or the interruption of a strike that has been called during the conciliation procedure, the Committee must point out once again that compulsory arbitration should be restricted to the following cases: (a) public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (b) essential services, namely those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; (c) situations of acute national crisis; or (d) cases in which both parties request arbitration.

While noting the Government’s indication that there has been no interference in industrial action in practice, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of strikes and any use of the Minister’s power to refer disputes to the Industrial Tribunal under section 27(1) at the request of only one of the parties to the dispute. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in the very near future to bring its legislation into greater conformity with the Convention by ensuring that the Minister’s power is restricted to the cases mentioned above. It draws the Government’s attention to the availability of the technical assistance of the Office, should it so desire.