Prohibitory injunction against Malta Dockers Union issued

The first Hall of the Civil Court has temporarily upheld an application for a prohibitory injunction against the Malta Dockers Union, as the applicants took issue with a legal notice which came into force just before the general election.

The application was filed by 50 self-employed drivers who are sub-contracted by the union to perform driving duties at the terminals of Malta Freeport. They requested the court to prevent the union from engaging new workers.

On 5 May 2017, the government issued a legal notice allowing port workers who meet certain conditions, or who are injured or pass away to be replaced by their son or daughter.

The original notice read that no port worker registered in the Port Workers Register shall, on death or retirement or on being medically boarded out, be replaced by a son or daughter or brother or sister as the case may be. The legal notice added a number of new provisions, such as: “Provided that this regulation shall not apply to those port workers who died or die through a fatal accident at the place of work during the performance of their duties. Such port workers shall be replaced by a son or daughter subject to the provisions of these regulations,” and “Provided further that port workers who prior to the 10th day of June 1975 were licensed to work in the general cargo stevedores or in the lightermen or in the port labourers section, shall continue to be replaced by a son or daughter or brother or sister, subject to the provisions of these regulations.”

The applicants indicated that a number of the new service providers are related to members of the Malta Dockers Union. If this is allowed to continue, the applicants said, they would be prejudiced against, as it will create a situation which goes against the basic industrial right of equal pay for equal work.

The applicants said that they had signed a contract for service to work for the union at Malta Freeport Terminals Ltd. They argued that despite the contract being called a contract of service – thus making them prima facie self-employed – they are still considered employees, highlighting certain legal provisions.

The court, presided over by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, upheld the application temporarily and put the case for hearing on 13 October.