ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

DISPLAYINFrench - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report. It notes in particular that a subcommittee of the Malta Council for Economic Development is examining the Industrial Relations Act with the aim of proposing appropriate amendments in order to improve voluntary procedures for the settlement of trade disputes. It further notes the Government's indication that an agreement has been reached concerning the setting up of a panel of mediators from outside the Department of Labour and that proposals have been made for facilitating hearings by the industrial tribunal. However, the Government also indicates that while the discussion on these issues is still ongoing, there exists a consensus of agreement amongst the social partners represented in the Council that the repeal of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act relating to resort to arbitration at the request of one of the parties in a trade dispute is premature.

While noting that some progress has been made in the discussions of the Council since the Government's last report, the Committee has to recall once again that it has been making comments on the incompatibility between the Industrial Relations Act and the provisions of the Convention for more than 20 years and therefore regrets that the discussions on the proposals to amend the Act are still at the stage of consultation and that the repeal of the provision on the resort to arbitration at the request of one of the parties is considered premature by the Council. The Committee once again recalls that the discrepancies between the legislation (sections 27 and 34 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976) and the Convention have to do with the possibility for the Minister to impose compulsory arbitration, whereas recourse to binding arbitration should be restricted to the following cases: (a) public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (b) essential services whose interruption would endanger the life, 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. Furthermore, the Government had mentioned in previous reports that sections 27 and 34 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1976 were intended to protect the weaker party in disputes, particularly where the stronger party is not prepared to accept arbitration. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it has always considered that arbitration imposed by the authorities at the request of one party is generally contrary to the principle of voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and thus the autonomy of the bargaining partners. An exception might, however, be made in the case of provisions which, for instance, allow workers' organizations to initiate such a procedure on their own for the conclusion of a first collective agreement (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 257).

The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the discussions within the Malta Council for Economic Development and once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures in the very near future to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer