Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2006, publiée 96ème session CIT (2007)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Malte (Ratification: 1965)

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.