ILO ruling on annual leave upholds trade union position

In January 2005, the Maltese government amended the annual leave law in order to abolish compensation for work carried out on public holidays falling on weekends through additional leave days. This decision was strongly opposed by the General Workers’ Union (GWU). As a result, the union made an appeal to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), claiming that the government’s decision nullified existing clauses in previously signed collective agreements. In June 2006, the ILO ruled in favour of GWU.

Context

In January 2005, after numerous consultations with the social partners failed to reach agreement on a social pact (MT0502103F), the Maltese government declared that work carried out on public holidays falling on weekends would no longer be compensated for by extra days of annual leave for workers. The government justified its decision by stating that such a move would help to increase Malta’s economic competitiveness and productivity levels.

The General Workers Union (GWU), which was strongly criticised for opposing the social pact, informed the government that it would do whatever it could to reverse the amendment to the annual leave law. The union argued that such a change negatively affected employees’ working conditions, which had already been negotiated in previous collective agreements. GWU officials contended that no third party could act in such a way as to nullify what had already been agreed in collective agreements.

In November 2005, the International Department and the Legal Office of GWU presented the case to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) by means of a letter addressed to the organisation’s General Director, Juan Somavia. GWU claimed that the government had nullified existing clauses in previously concluded collective agreements and had therefore bypassed the collective bargaining process.

ILO ruling

In June 2006, GWU announced that the ILO, after examining the case brought forward by the union, had ruled in its favour. The ILO concluded that the government’s decision violated Conventions 87 and 98 concerning the freedom of association and the right to organise and bargain collectively. Hence, the ILO recommended that the government should amend the National Holidays and Other Public Holidays Act in such a way that employees covered by collective agreements will receive an extra day’s leave for every day worked on public holidays falling on weekends.

The ILO sought to ensure that clauses stipulated in collective agreements are not made invalid and that the government does not interfere in social partner negotiations relating to collective agreements. The ILO also stated that, if the Maltese government amended the law on public holidays because of a crisis faced by the country, any measures taken affecting employees should only be of a temporary nature.

Interpretations of ruling

Many of the social partners, including the heads of institutional bodies and union executives, agreed with the ILO’s ruling. On the other hand, representatives of employer organisations voiced their dissatisfaction with the decision. For example, the Malta Employers’ Association (MEA) urged the government to take immediate action in continuing to fulfil its goals in promoting and increasing Malta’s competitiveness. MEA encouraged the government to adopt a more direct approach by reducing the number of public holidays by four days and thus increasing the number of annual working days.

The government claimed that the ILO did not criticise the way in which it amended the law last year, but rather criticised a law that had been introduced by the government in 1975. The government also announced that it would make the necessary amendments after consultation with the social partners, which is expected to take place in the Employment Relations Board, a tripartite consultative body. At the same time, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi stated that if there is no better solution, the government will have to reduce the number of public holidays in Malta.

Christine Farrugia and Sue-Ann Scott, Centre for Labour Studies