A civil court has thrown out preliminary pleas raised by the government in a lawsuit filed by sacked Air Malta pilots who are calling for contractual obligations to be honoured in their regard.

The proceedings were instituted last September by the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), on behalf of 46 members on the basis of an agreement signed between the union and former Tourism Minister Konrad Mizzi on January 26, 2018.

That agreement had taken the form of a side letter, signed on the same day as a collective agreement between the parties and guaranteeing the pilots “a job in Malta and a take-home pay, according to the conditions of the collective agreement signed earlier today.”

Months later, on June 8, the airline terminated the contracts of 69 of its pilots in the wake of COVID-19 and a dispute over pay cuts.

When the case went to court, the government raised two preliminary pleas, arguing that the union could not institute proceedings on behalf of its members once the members themselves were present in Malta, and that ALPA lacked juridical interest since it was never employed by Air Malta and hence had never suffered any termination of employment.

Madam Justice Anna Felice rejected the pleas, making reference to established case-law on the notion of juridical interest.

The court observed that the dispute essentially pivoted upon the collective agreement to which the union was a party. Therefore it could not be reasonably argued that the union lacked juridical interest in proceedings focusing upon the outcome of that agreement, even if ALPA was not seeking such “promised employment” for itself.

As for the other plea, that the union had to prove its juridical representation of the pilots, the court observed that each of those members had been named in the heading of the case, as applicants in the suit.

Moreover, the union had been authorised to act on its members’ behalf.

There was documentary evidence of this and, in any case, individual members could always request intervention in the proceedings, observed the court, thus also rejecting this plea, whilst ordering a correction in the heading of the case by instructing the words, “on behalf and in the interest of” to be struck off.

The case continues.