ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2006, publiée 96ème session CIT (2007)

Convention (n° 98) sur le droit d'organisation et de négociation collective, 1949 - Malte (Ratification: 1965)

Autre commentaire sur C098

Demande directe
  1. 2006
  2. 2004

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

1. Comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). The Committee notes the comments made by the ICFTU in a communication dated 10 August 2006 on the application of the Convention. The comments concern compulsory arbitration and the Public Holidays Act infringing upon provisions of collective agreements on holidays. The Committee points out that this question has been dealt with by the Committee on Freedom of Association which, in its recommendation, requested the Government to amend section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act so as to ensure that this provisions: (i) does not render automatically null and void any provisions in existing collective agreements which grant workers the right to recover public holidays falling on a Saturday or Sunday; and (ii) does not preclude voluntary negotiations in the future over the issue of granting workers the right to recover national or public holidays which fall on a Saturday or Sunday on the basis of a collective agreement (see 342nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 752). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged to amend section 6 of the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous observation, the Committee had observed that pursuant to section 75(1) of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act 2002 (EIRA), alleged unfair dismissals of certain categories of workers are excluded from the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal and dealt with under separate legislation. The Committee asks again the Government to provide clarification of the procedures in place in relation to allegations of dismissal for reasons of anti-union discrimination for public officers, port workers and public transport workers.

3. Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Protection against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had observed that the EIRA did not expressly protect employers’ and workers’ organizations from acts of interference by one another, nor did it provide a rapid and effective appeal procedure or sanctions in the case of breach as is required to ensure compatibility with the Convention (see General Survey 1994, paragraph 232). The Committee again requests the Government to take measures in order that the legislation prohibits and sanctions acts of interference in a sufficiently dissuasive way.

4. Article 4 of the Convention. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the information provided by the Government that unions representing more then 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 again requests the Government to indicate whether collective bargaining with trade unions representing less then 50 per cent of the employees is possible, at least on behalf of their own members.

5. In its previous observations, the Committee had noted with concern that section 74 of the EIRA entitles the minister to refer an unresolved trade dispute to the industrial tribunal at the request of one party and that the industrial tribunal’s decision in this matter will be binding. The Committee had also noted that pursuant to section 80 of the EIRA, in its capacity to decide trade disputes, the industrial tribunal is obliged to take into consideration the Government’s social and economic policies and plans. The Committee recalls that, except in the case of public servants engaged in the administration of the State or essential services in the strict sense of the word, it is generally contrary to the principle of the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements established in the Convention, and thus the autonomy of the bargaining parties, for binding arbitration to be imposed by the authorities at the request of one party (see General Survey 1994, paragraph 257). The Committee again requests the Government to consider amending these provisions to ensure the compatibility of its legislation with the requirements of the Convention.

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