Updated 5.50pm

Proposed amendments to the law regulating the engineering profession have stalled after a court confirmed an injunction requested by a trade union and backed by three elected members on the Engineering Profession Board. 

This latest twist in the ongoing dispute between the Malta Association of Professional Engineers and the board was the outcome of a decision delivered on Thursday by the First Hall, Civil Court, confirming the warrant of prohibitory injunction, provisionally upheld on October 15. 

The union that represents warranted engineers had filed for the injunction in a bid to block the board’s attempt to push the proposed amendments through Parliament, claiming that such amendments would effectively eliminate the status of the professional engineer. 

The board countered that the amendments were needed to bring existing legislation in line with the EU Services Directive, making reference to a formal notice of infringement proceedings by the European Commission in case of failure to conform.

A number of the amendments had been proposed by the commission itself and “neither undermined nor eliminated the existence of the engineering profession,” the board argued.

The aim of the directive was to eliminate barriers between member states, enabling every “service provider” to work in different states, provided warrant criteria were satisfied. 

Besides, discussions and consultation on these amendments had been going on for years, the board went on. 

Yet, those arguments were not shared by the three newly-elected members on the same board who garnered 60% of the votes in a record turnout election among members in August. 

True to the proposal in their electoral manifesto, Brian Micallef, Samuel Bonanno and Fabio Stivala, the elected members, filed a joint reply in their personal capacity, “formally distancing themselves” from the position adopted by the board and backing the call for an injunction. 

Besides lending an unexpected twist to the situation, that reply also shed light upon the clear absence of “harmony” within the board, a point that was commented upon by Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale when confirming the prohibitory injunction. 

The three engineers explained how at the very first meeting after their election, the chairman of the board, lawyer Noel Camilleri, had remarked that he did not require the approval of the elected members, since his casting vote would guarantee a majority. 

Previous board minutes and a final draft of the disputed amendments were not made available to the new members in spite of repeated requests, the court was told. 

The three dissenting members fully agreed with MAPE that the profession was facing a “serious threat,” and that the board was not truly acting in the best interestsof the profession but rather in an arbitrary and unprofessional manner. 

How could the board claim there was ongoing consultation when in reality it did not even consult its own members, the three engineers said, noting further that they had refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement before attending board meetings. 

They did not want to act as accomplices “in bringing the engineering profession to ruin,” these members argued. 

Faced with this evidence, the court had to determine whether the requisites for the confirmation of the injunction were satisfied, namely, that the union had a prima facie right that needed to be safeguarded and that it would suffer prejudice unless the injunction was confirmed.

According to a recent law on proportionality testing before adopting new regulations on professionals, the association was to be consulted prior to the introduction of the amendments.

In this case, such consultation was not likely to take place successfully, given the clear lack of “harmony”, said Mr Justice Depasquale, noting that three of the members had “dissociated themselves from any declaration by the board,” even backing the call for an injunction and were refused documents by the board. 

Consequently, the court confirmed the injunction stating that the association would suffer irremediable prejudice if the amendments were to go through without the necessary consultation. 

Lawyer Michael Tanti-Dougall assisted the association. Lawyer Daniela Azzopardi Bonanno assisted engineers Brian Micallef, Samuel Bonanno and Fabio Stivala.

MAPE calls for resignation of engineering board chair

In a statement on Friday, MAPE called for the “immediate resignation” of the Chairman of the Engineering Profession Board which, although “duty-bound to protect” the profession had “failed seriously.”

Thursday’s court decision had proved the association “right all the way,” the statement read.

Claims that the contested amendments were based on “recommendations by the EU Commission” were “unfounded” and the court proceedings had shed light upon “another set of draft amendments” which had never been published and about which MAPE had not been consulted, it said.

The prohibitory injunction was  “an extreme measure taken in extreme circumstances” but the unfortunate state of affairs on the board called for this “extreme measure,” to safeguard “the interests and livelihood” of professional engineers.

The fact that the court confirmed the injunction against the Engineering Profession Board “is a statement of condemnation of the conduct of the Board by led its Chairman,” the association said, calling for the chairman’s “immediate resignation".