A 'hundred classes' would be without a teacher were industrial action by teachers’ unions to take effect, a court was told on Tuesday.
This was one of the arguments put forward by lawyers representing education authorities in injunction proceedings filed by the Ministry of Education in a bid to block industrial action threatened by teachers.
The issue stemmed from an eleventh-hour decision taken by the authorities to redeploy peripatetic educators so as to plug a shortage of teachers in primary schools, prompting the Malta Union of Teachers to register an industrial dispute.
Measures threatened by the union would have a national impact, said lawyer James D’Agostino when making verbal submissions to support the authorities’ request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction against union members.
The issue was to be viewed against the background of the [COVID-19] pandemic and the extraordinary circumstances this had given rise to.
The decision to redeploy the peripatetic educators was a temporary one, necessitated by the health criteria which education authorities have had to cater for and everything would revert back to what it had been once the pandemic was over.
Yet, instead of engaging in discussions, the defendants had resorted to “strong-arming” the authorities, threatening industrial measures if the redeployment went ahead.
If those threats were to be put into effect there would be a 'hundred classes' without a teacher and so many students lagging behind in their studies, argued the lawyer, stressing that no court decision “would ever remedy that prejudice”.
Moreover, such action by the teachers would also trigger a series of logistical problems for parents and employers.
The permanent secretary had a duty to cater for the educational system, including the deployment of human resources, and that provided the legal basis for the request for an injunction, said D’Agostino citing the relative provisions of the Education Act.
N problem arose this summer when the same system was adopted by Church schools, he argued.
“We are not reinventing the wheel. Once the health situation no longer requires this [redeployment], everything will go back to how it was before.
“Should the request for an injunction not be upheld, we would have a situation where a union would be usurping the rights of the State to affect deployment,” concluded D’Agostino.
But lawyer Keith Borg, one of the lawyers assisting the MUT, countered that a union should not be divested of its right to protect members.
The country’s education was at stake, said the lawyer, questioning the legal basis of the authorities’ alleged right to redeploy educators at the eleventh hour.
Music and drama teachers, along with those who assisted students with special needs or young cancer patients receiving treatment at Mater Dei Hospital, had been targeted for redeployment.
How had the authorities catered for these particular students, remarked the lawyer, pointing out the irremediable prejudice that would ensue?
“They were simply taking an educator from one child to give to another,” said Borg, drawing an analogy with the transfer of a judge from one courtroom to another.
Take the case of a teacher of a cancer patient, redeployed to teach a primary class or a peripatetic teacher being informed at the eleventh hour that he would be teaching a Grade 4 class, argued the lawyer.
Besides such practical issues, the authorities’ action for an injunction was illogical from a legal perspective.
What action on the merits would the government file to follow up such injunction, argued Borg.
The authorities could not sue individual teachers, so would they sue the union requesting the court to stop teachers from following union directives indefinitely, queried the lawyer.
“It’s a non sequitur,” Borg argued.
The MUT directive in question was not a “blanket directive”, pointed out the union’s lawyer, clarifying that directives were “by member”.
Adding on to the arguments by the MUT lawyer, UPE lawyer David Camilleri told the court that the union had not issued any directives to its members although it did not approve of the “short timing of the manoeuvre” by the authorities.
Moreover, he argued that it was for the applicants to prove the irremediable prejudice that was to be suffered by the government if the injunction were to be denied.
The education authorities were represented by permanent secretary Frank Fabri, director-general educational services Emile Vassallo and director education resources Lucienne Calleja.
The case was originally assigned to Mr Justice Robert Mangion who abstained in view of the fact that his wife is a member of one of the unions in the dispute.
It was then re-assigned to Mr Justice Toni Abela who also abstained upon being informed that his wife was still registered as an active member on the union’s records.
The case was finally re-assigned to Mr Justice Neville Camilleri who scheduled a hearing for Tuesday.
The court is expected to deliver a decree in chambers.
Lawyers James D’Agostino and Dennis Zammit assisted the applicants. Lawyers Keith Borg and Rebecca Mercieca assisted MUT. Lawyers David Camilleri, Marion Camilleri and Franco Debono assisted UPE.