Ombudsman Slams Ministry of Education for requesting “personalised union directives”
On October 4, 2024, a significant legal milestone was reached when Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent A. De Gaetano, serving as Commissioner for Education and Ombudsman, ruled in favor of the Union of Professional Educators (UPE). This decision marks yet another historic victory for educators in Malta, affirming the importance of trade union rights and the protection of their members from discriminatory practices.
The roots of this case trace back to a complaint lodged by the UPE on February 23, 2024. The union, which advocates for educators across both public and private sectors, was not recognized as the majority trade union for collective bargaining, a distinction held by another union. The essence of the UPE’s complaint centered around allegations that, in several state primary schools—specifically San Gwann, Had-Dingli, Hal Ghaxaq, and Zejtun A—members following UPE directives were unfairly compelled by some heads of school to provide written proof of their union affiliation. Such a requirement, it was argued, was discriminatory and infringed upon the freedom of trade union association.
The situation escalated in one school, where the UPE claimed that harassment of its members occurred during a staff meeting, illustrating how the actions of school heads could foster an environment of intimidation. The UPE stressed that members of other unions were not subjected to similar demands, underscoring the discriminatory nature of the practices enforced by the Directorate of Educational Services.
After a thorough investigation, the ruling primarily focused on the problematic insistence by education authorities that UPE members provide a “personalized union directive” when adhering to union directives. The decision highlighted the absence of legal grounding for such a requirement, clarifying that under the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, minority unions like the UPE possess the right to issue directives to their members without trepidation of contravening collective bargaining protocols. Hon De Gaetano stated that, ‘even a minority union can issue directives to its members and these can be followed also by employees who are not members of that minority union’.
Hon De Gaetano pointed out that the education authorities’ stance not only violated privacy regulations (specifically the General Data Protection Regulation) but also posed a prima facie breach of trade union rights as enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The substantial chilling effect that this demand imposed on the free exercise of union membership was unequivocally noted as unreasonable and unjust.
In conclusion, the Ombudsman’s recommendations included an immediate cessation of the requirement for a “personalized union directive,” which was identified as unlawful. This decision not only exemplifies the importance of trade union rights but also serves as a powerful affirmation for the UPE and its members, ensuring that they can operate without facing undue scrutiny or discrimination from educational authorities.
“Conclusion:
In view of all the above, the complaint is upheld only to the extent that the requirement of producing a “personalised union directive” when a member of the complainant union follows any of the union’s directives is in breach of Article 22 of Cap. 385.
The undersigned, therefore, recommends that the Education Authorities stop and desist forthwith from insisting on the so-called *personalised union directive” (directive/circular DG DES 14/2024).”
As the UPE celebrates this critical victory, it stands as a testament to the ongoing fight for fair treatment and recognition of all educational professionals, reinforcing the ideals of equality and fairness within Malta’s educational landscape.
