Definitive Report - REPORT_NO244, June 1986

1. 194. The Committee considered this case at its meeting in February 1986 when it made the following recommendations to the Governing Body (see 243rd Report, para. 633):
   • (a) the Committee urges the Government to take whatever steps it can to bring about the establishment of the joint negotiating machinery envisaged for teachers, among others in the public service, in terms of the Industrial Relations Act, 1976;
   • (b) the Committee requests the Government to provide it with additional information relating to the breakdown in negotiations between the MUT and the Department of Education during the period of the freeze on wages and in response to allegations concerning the forcible subjection of teachers to medical examinations, the forcible transporting of teachers to schools and threats made against teachers during the course of the strike which took place between September and November 1985;
   • (c) the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will keep it informed of any further measures it takes to return to their previous posts those teachers who were transferred following their participation in the strike and who have expressed a wish that this be done;
   • (d) the Committee calls on the Government to give effect to the principles of freedom of association concerning the avoidance of a climate of violence involving attacks on trade unionists and trade union property to the fullest extent possible, and to keep it informed of measures taken to bring to trial any persons suspected of being responsible for their breach in relation to the events referred to in this case;
   • (e) the Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this case.
2. 195. Further information was communicated to the Committee by the complainants on 13 and 14 March 1986, and the observations of the Government were contained in a communication dated 20 April 1986.
3. 196. Malta has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98).It has not ratified the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No.151).

A. Additional information

1. 197. Additional information was submitted for consideration by the Committee in communications from the International Federation of Free Teachers' Unions on 13 March and from the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession on 14 March 1986. Both communications set out material relating to the most recent exchanges of correspondence between their affiliate, the Movement of United Teachers (MUT), and the Government of Malta concerning the salary claims submitted at various times since 1976 and in particular that submitted on 28 October 1985 together with a request for the continuation of negotiations based on the union's claim dated 1 July 1981 and the Government's counter offer of 22 March 1983.
2. 198. Copies of this correspondence, which were appended to the complainants' submissions, indicate that: in a letter dated 4 November 1985 the office of the Prime Minister informed the MUT that in the current circumstances, the union's claim of 15 July 1981 had been turned down; in a reply by the MUT on 28 December 1985 the MUT noted its assumption that the circumstances cited referred to the wage freeze, and expressed the view that negotiations should continue but that any settlement should be implemented only after the wage freeze had come to an end; a response from the Prime Minister's Office on 13 January 1986 confirmed that there were no grounds for holding further discussions on this subject; the MUT then pointed out in a letter of 4 February 1986 that it had received an assurance from the (then) Prime Minister and the Minister of Education in November 1984 that negotiations would be resumed after the end of the strike and if it withdrew a directive to teachers in private schools not to accept employment in government schools; and a reply from the Prime Minister's Office on 12 February 1986 which had confirmed the previous statement concerning the absence of grounds for holding further discussions, as the claim submitted had been turned down after protracted consideration and discussions.

B. The Government's observations

1. 199. In its communication of 20 April 1986, the Government begins by referring to the fact that its position regarding the Joint Negotiating Council is that set out in previous correspondence; it also states in this regard that it has always been and remains willing to set up the Council provided the unions agree among themselves on a form of common representation that will facilitate the speedy resolution of disputes.
2. 200. With regard to the industrial dispute, the Government states that negotiations had been suspended because the MUT linked the contested salary claim with opposition to the reform of free education for all those in catholic secondary schools, and that the taking of industrial action at this juncture was intended to put pressure on the Government to the advantage of a third party.
3. 201. The Government denies that it was involved in the forcible transporting of teachers to work or in threats made to teachers during the course of the strike.It states further that teachers were subjected to medical examination because there was suspicion of malingering or of absence for reasons other than sickness, and that although the procedures adopted may not have been those normally followed they were considered justified in the prevailing circumstances.
4. 202. Regarding the transfer of teachers to other schools, the Government points out that this was done in the case of a large number who had not participated in the strike, and that only 262 of those who had participated in the strike indicated a preference for resuming their previous posts (of whom 41 had been accepted on humanitarian grounds). Applications by teachers who had taken more than the usual amount of sick leave during the previous scholastic year had not been considered, whether or not these had participated in the strike.
5. 203. The Government goes on to state that it rejects the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 194 (d) above. In this regard, it says that the Committee should be aware that during the period referred to government schools and kindergarten centres were broken into and vandalised with considerable damage to property and equipment. It adds that it took all the necessary measures to protect all citizens and all public and private property; that police protection was provided for the MUT president and other officials as necessary; that all incidents connected with the MUT strike were investigated by the police according to procedures adopted in similar cases; and that all persons who may be apprehended and found guilty of criminal acts will be dealt with according to law.
6. 204. Finally, the Government repeats its view that it has acted in all matters according to the norms which should be followed in a democratic country. It states that it placed the interests of school children above all else and continues to do so, and regrets that the same cannot be said of the MUT.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 205. With regard to the absence of negotiating machinery, the Committee feels constrained to refer once again to the observations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and can only repeat its view that the continuation of this situation appears to have contributed to the difficulties which have been experienced in resolving the problems which gave rise to the industrial dispute involving the teaching profession and its aftermath. The Committee accordingly draws the attention of the Government yet again to the importance of the principle embodied in Article 4 of Convention No. 98 on the promotion and development of machinery for voluntary collective bargaining and again urges the Government to take whatever steps it can to bring about the joint negotiating machinery envisaged for teachers, among others, in terms of the Industrial Relations Act, 1976. In addition, it draws the Government's attention to the principle that, if national legislation establishes machinery for the representation of the occupational interests of a whole category of workers, this representation should normally lie with the organisations which have the largest membership in the categories concerned, and the public authorities should refrain from any intervention that might undermine this principle. (Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body of the ILO, 1985, 3rd Edition, para. 611; see 118th Report of the Committee, Cases Nos. 589 and 594 (India), paras. 81 and 82.) The Committee expresses the hope that negotiations will take place in the near future which will lead to a resolution of the dispute between the Government and the teaching profession.
2. 206. With regard to the treatment of teachers during and after the strike, the Committee has noted the Government's statement that it was not involved in the forcible transporting of teachers to schools or in threats made during the course of the strike. It considers that these matters do not require further examination.
3. 207. The Committee notes, however, that 221 of the 1,400 teachers transferred after the strike are said by the Government to have expressed a preference for retaining their previous posts, and also that abnormal procedures were followed regarding the medical examinations to which some teachers were subjected during the course of the strike.In this regard, it draws the Government's attention to the principle that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring and dismissal but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker (Digest of Decisions, 1985, 3rd Edition, para. 544; see 211th Report, Case No. 1020 (Mali), para. 250, and 214th Report, Case No. 1021 (Greece), para. 125).
4. 208. With regard to the allegations concerning injury to trade union leaders and damage to trade union property, and the Government's assertions concerning similar attacks which are said to have occurred on schools, the Committee notes that police protection was provided for the MUT president, but also notes that no detail has been provided by the Government on other aspects of these matters and, in particular, regarding the arraignment and trial of those considered responsible for such acts. It regrets the Government's rejection of the call made in its previous report to give effect to the principle referred to in paragraph 194 (d) above and underlines once again the importance which it attaches to the observance of so fundamental a principle, as well as to its firm conviction that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement cannot develop in a climate of violence and uncertainty (ibid., para. 75; see 197th Report, Case No. 924 (Guatemala), para. 493, and 205th Report, Case No. 983 (Bolivia), para. 33).