Irregular workers' injustice claim dismissed
Ten applications filed before the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustices were yesterday dismissed by Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco ruling that no injustice had taken place. The applications were filed against Air Malta Co. Ltd and Air Supplies...
Ten applications filed before the Tribunal for the Investigation of Injustices were yesterday dismissed by Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco ruling that no injustice had taken place.
The applications were filed against Air Malta Co. Ltd and Air Supplies and Catering Co. Ltd by Martin Scicluna, John Cassar, John Camilleri, Salvu Scerri, Tony Tanti, Stephen Darmanin, Spiridione Buttigieg, Horace Borg, Twanny Mangion and John Cassar.
They claimed they had been employed by Air Malta as loaders in May 1987. After the 1987 general election they were transferred to Air Malta's subsidiaries and shortly after to the Auxiliary Corps. They said they had suffered an injustice because they were engaged to work during summer as loaders with Air Malta but were not employed on a permanent basis even though the company had employed other workers in this manner.
They requested the tribunal to grant them a remedy.
The tribunal noted that it resulted from the evidence that the men had not been employed by Air Malta on May 7, 1987 but, on the contrary, had been employed by Air Supplies in an irregular manner. Their position had been regularised in 1992 when they were employed by the government.
The tribunal added that Air Supplies had not been called into the suit within the prescribed time limits and that therefore all applications against this latter company were ineffective. Once the men had not been employed by Air Malta it followed that Air Malta was not responsible for any injustices allegedly sustained by them.
Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco added that the 10 men had been employed by Air Supplies in 1987 in an irregular manner; the 1987 agreement between the government and the General Workers' Union had established that irregular employees were to be classified as casual employees and were deemed to be flexible at work.
In conclusion, the tribunal found that as the applicants were irregular employees they were not entitled to the same rights as those who had been employed in a regular manner.
The applications were therefore dismissed.