Court gives go-ahead for bus operator to negotiate with GWU

The Civil Court has revoked a preliminary decree granting a warrant of prohibitory injunction the was preventing the Malta Public Transport Services Ltd from negotiating a collective agreement with the General Workers Union.

The UHM had filed an application for a warrant of prohibitory injunction in February this year, calling on the court to prevent the MPTS from negotiating with the GWU or other unions, arguing that this step was necessary to protect the rights of its members.

This application was provisionally accepted by the court, which issued a provisional injunction.

The MPTS had been in negotiations with the GWU regarding a new collective agreement for several months, however the UHM is insisting that out of nearly 670 bus drivers, over 400 were registered with the UHM and that it has the majority to become the bus drivers’ recognised union.

To further complicate matters, at least 100 drivers were not considered to be UHM members by the MTPS and some of these drivers had also resigned as members of the General Workers Union.

The MPTS, on its part, had argued that it was, in effect, “trapped in a vice” between the two unions who are both contending that they have the right to represent the MPTS drivers, adding that an injunction against it had been obtained by the GWU, halting its verification of membership records.

The court noted that in the past, such an impasse had been overcome by verifying which union represented the majority of workers, carrying on negotiations with one which was recognised in the meantime. In this case, however “there is a probability that the company will be unable to negotiate with either union for an indefinite period of time.”

The court noted that the services in question are of national importance and must not be delayed. In view of the fact that the representation of the drivers was being robustly contested by the other unions as well as third parties and that verification of the UHM’s claim required a great deal of time, it held that it could not presume that the union was representative of the majority of bus drivers.

As a consequence, the existence of a prima facie right, which the injunction was there to protect, was not proven. The court therefore revoked its preliminary decree granting the injunction.