UHM warns of 'industrial havoc' following tribunal court ruling

Union Haddiema Maghqudin questions why government didn't act earlier to amend Industrial Tribunal, after a court upholds that its composition is unconstitutional and breaches right to fair hearing 

The industrial sector is facing a “lacuna” following a Constitutional Court ruling that the composition of the Industrial Tribunal breaches the right to a fair hearing, the Union Haddiema Maghqudin warned.

“We are concerned that this situation may have serious ramifications on the decisions pronounced by the Industrial Tribunal in the last years,” UHM secretary general Josef Vella said in a statement. “This would certainly wreck havoc in the whole industrial sector.”

Following the court’s decision, government immediately asked the Attorney General to draft legal amendments to ensure the independence and impartiality of the tribunal.

“The amendments will erase old practices which hinder fair hearing and correct a situation brought about by previous administrations which were found to have breached the Constitution,” the government said in a statement.

However, Vella insisted that government should have dealt with this issue much earlier.

“It was aware of such a situation months ago, yet persisted in the same composition [of the tribunal] notwithstanding such repercussions.” He said. “The government should have forecast such a situation and taken early measures to avoid the lacuna the industrial sector is facing today.”

The case goes back to 2008 when two cases filed by the General Workers’ Union against the Attorney General were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. However, the GWU accused the tribunal chairman of being “biased” towards the government in cases involving a state entity.

It questioned why the chair was appointed by government and objected to a provision in the law that requires the tribunal “to take into consideration the social policies of the government based on principles of social justice and the requirements of any national development plan”.

The union claimed that this clause prevented the tribunal from acting independently and impartially in cases involving government entities.

Last year, judge Anna Felice ruled that the law establishing the Industrial Tribunal was unconstitutional as it failed to guarantee independence and impartiality. The Attorney General appealed the decision, but the Constitutional Court on Friday upheld Felice’s decision.

“We are greatly concerned that the recent development have cast a shadow of uncertainty over the rights afforded to employees and their right to seek redress before a competent tribunal,” UHM legal team member Andrew Grima said. “As things stand today, we find ourselves at an impasse whereby although the Industrial Tribunal effectively still enjoys an exclusive jurisdiction to preside over matters falling within the scope of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, such as unfair dismissal, discrimination and industrial disputes.

“Those seeking to safeguard their interests at law have no alternative but to seek redress before such Tribunal and run the risk of having the proceedings suspended or challenged as being unconstitutional.”