A chairman and members of the Industrial Tribunal are seeking “protection, help and assistance” from the country’s highest authorities after being personally identified in a recent court case filed by the Union of Professional Educators.
The issue stemmed from a constitutional application filed by the union challenging the tribunal’s decision denying it the right to represent learning support educators (LSEs) and assist its members in collective bargaining procedures.
Although the Department of Industrial and Employment Relations had confirmed that the union actually represented the majority of LSEs in state employment, the tribunal concluded that this particular category of educators could not be considered as a ‘separate bargaining unit.’
UPE took their grievance to court, claiming that the tribunal’s decision violated the union’s right of representation.
Moreover, since all three members on the tribunal were appointed by government entities and held other public offices, they were neither independent nor impartial, claimed the union’s lawyers.
A month after that case was filed, the three tribunal members, namely Harold Walls, lawyer Bryony Bartolo and Lawrence Mizzi, voiced “concern” over such a “surprise attack” wherein they were personally and directly targeted.
By means of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for Social Dialogue, the three members rebutted UPE’s claims about the Tribunal’s lack of independence and impartiality.
The tribunal was set up and regulated in terms of law which incorporated the necessary safeguards to ensure its independence and impartiality.
“In this particular case, we declare that we always exercised our function throughout the proceedings in an independent, impartial and integral manner.”
There was no reason for them to abstain.
Moreover, at no point had the union sought the recusal of the tribunal members and only flagged “unfounded doubts” in the application instituting the constitutional case.
It was unacceptable for someone to be faced with such constitutional action whenever a party disagreed with a decision taken by the tribunal members who were after all simply performing their duties. Just as no judge or magistrate was ever sued personally over a decision taken by the court, the same was to apply to members of the tribunal who exercised a quasi-judicial function, they said.
Faced with such “surprise” and direct “attack” the tribunal members turned to the authorities for “protection, help and assistance” throughout the entire proceedings filed by the Union.
A copy of their letter was also sent to President George Vella.