Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Malta (Ratification: 1965)

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous observations, given that, pursuant to the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, 2002 (EIRA) public officers, port workers and public transport workers are excluded from the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal, the Committee had requested the Government to: (i) indicate before which body the public officers and the port workers may appeal against decisions taken by the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Port Workers Board, respectively, in case they consider they were subject to anti-union dismissals; and (ii) indicate the specific procedures applicable for the examination of allegations of anti-union dismissals concerning scheduled public transport workers. With respect to public officers, the Committee notes that, the Government refers to sections 27–30 of the PSC Disciplinary Regulations but has not provided a response to the request. Regarding port workers, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that they are already members of and represented by the Malta Dockers Union (MDU). With respect to scheduled transport workers, the Committee notes that the Government informs that: (i) the Industrial Tribunal, which is regulated by the EIRA (Cap 452), is tasked to examine such allegations; (ii) the tribunal is free to regulate its own procedures but it is expected to observe the rules of natural justice and to decide on the substantive merits of the case in front of it; (iii) awards or decisions are binding on both parties; and (iv) in cases of unfair dismissal, the tribunal may order re-instatement of the employee or award compensation.

The Committee reiterates its request for the Government to indicate before which body the public officers and the port workers may appeal against decisions taken by the PSC and the Port Workers Board, in case they consider they were subject to anti-union dismissals.

The Committee also previously observed that the general sanctions set by section 45(1) of the EIRA might not be sufficiently dissuasive, particularly for large enterprises, and requested the Government to take the necessary measures, to provide for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions for acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that no changes are envisaged in section 45(1), but that employees can lodge a case with the industrial tribunal or civil court should they want to take further action against the employer. The Committee reiterates its request for the Government to take the necessary measures within the framework of the revision of the EIRA to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention by ensuring that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are provided for acts of anti-union discrimination.

Articles 2 and 3. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee 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. The Committee notes with regret that the Government merely indicates that sections 63 and 64 of the EIRA provide for immunity of trade unions and employers’ associations against acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to adopt specific provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union interference, coupled with rapid appeal procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining in law and in practice. The Committee notes that the Government highlights 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 recalls that in a previous report, following a request for clarification in this respect, the Government had indicated, that nothing in the law precludes employers from negotiating with unions representing less than 50 per cent of employees. Recalling that the requirement of too high a percentage for representativity to be authorized to engage in collective bargaining may hamper the promotion and development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and that collective bargaining should be possible at all levels, the Committee requests the Government to: (i) provide exhaustive information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, the level in which they are concluded (national/sectoral/enterprise-establishment levels), the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered; and (ii) indicate the number of collective agreements signed with unions that do not reach the 50 per cent threshold.