Supply teacher threatens legal action after ministry ignores Ombudsman ruling

A supply teacher has filed a judicial protest warning she will sue the education authorities after they ignored an Ombudsman ruling that found she was being unfairly paid less than her colleagues despite doing the same work.

Charlotte Sammut had filed a complaint with the Ombudsman on August 26, 2024 centred on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

She joined the education sector as a supply teacher in 2013 and four years later she was granted indefinite status.

Over the past 12 years, Sammut was entrusted with teaching Accounts, Business Studies, and VET Retail in secondary schools.

In his investigation, the Commissioner for Education within the Ombudsman’s office Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent DeGaetano found that Sammut had the same responsibilities, workload and commitments as all regular teachers. He also found no evidence to suggest that her performance was in any way inferior to that of regular teachers and her continued employment and consistent academic performance of her students were a testament to that.

DeGaetano noted that while supply teachers were engaged temporarily to address specific shortfalls in teaching staff, over the years, supply teachers were being employed on a long-term basis. However, this was done without the corresponding salary and benefits of regular teachers.

The Commissioner for Education within the Ombudsman’s office Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent DeGaetano ruled the supply teacher should be paid the same as a teacher. File photo: Times of Malta.

The investigation found that despite performing identical duties, supply teachers were excluded from certain allowances. It also emerged that Sammut’s work and obligations were equivalent to those of regular teachers.

The commissioner held that Sammut’s complaint was justified and that lower remuneration was both “unjust” and “improperly discriminatory”. He added it was also wrong in principle under the Ombudsman Act.

He recommended that Sammut be paid the same class allowance and work resources as a teacher in Salary Scale 9 backdated to the date when the complaint was served to the permanent secretary on September 2, 2024.

However, Permanent Secretary Matthew Vella replied that a teacher’s warrant was based on qualifications and not performance, and a supply teacher could not be assigned to the class of teacher simply based on performance. He also noted that if the recommendation was upheld, this would create issues with fully qualified teachers.

The commissioner retorted that the issue at hand was not the absence or possession of a teaching warrant but the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

“This letter minute is conspicuous by the absence of any serious engagement on the part of your ministry over the issue of the concrete and practical, as opposed to the legalistic and theoretical, approach to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value,” DeGaetano said.

“The warrant/s issued by the Council for the Teaching Profession was/were not the issue in this case,” he added, before concluding with: "Finally, it is clear from the drift of your reply that the administration is quite content with the present situation which in practice exploits supply teachers. The fact that this is done with the connivance of others does not render the situation any the less inequitable.”

The final opinion was sent to the Prime Minister given that the education authorities did not comply with the recommendation before it was sent to the Speaker of the House.

Sammut then proceeded to file a judicial protest warning that she was ready to sue if the permanent secretary for the education ministry did not act on the Ombudsman’s recommendation.

The judicial protest was signed by lawyer Andrew Borg Cardona.