Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 86, 1966

Cas no 431 (Malte) - Date de la plainte: 13-FÉVR.-65 - Clos

1. 59. The complaint is contained in a telegram dated 13 February 1965 addressed to the I.L.O by the Malta Customs Federation and in a communication dated 25 March 1965 submitted jointly by that organisation and the Customs and Excise Officers' Association, Malta. The Government of Malta furnished its observations on the complaint by a communication dated 22 May 1965.
2. 60. Malta ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), on 4 January 1965.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 61. The two complaining unions, which organise customs officers in the landing and warehousing branch and the customs and excise branch respectively, have set up a joint committee, with a view to obtaining better promotion prospects for customs officers. On 11 January 1964 they asked the Government for a closed-shop agreement, so that senior posts in the customs department would be reserved for customs officers and closed to members of the general service. Executive and administrative officers of the general service in Malta are organised by the Society of Administrative and Executive Civil Servants.
2. 62. After making threats of industrial action the complainants held discussions with the Government on 15 April, 11 September and 3 December 1964, and on the last occasion, it is alleged, the Government promised to " finalise the claim " in the first week of January 1965. However, nothing further had happened by the third week in January 1965 and the complainants decided to order a ban on overtime and working to rule as from midnight on 24-25 January 1965.
3. 63. On 23 January the Government informed the complainants that the filling of existing senior posts and the provisions of additional such posts were matters of managerial prerogative and could not therefore be the subject of agreement or industrial disputes. At the same time the Government offered to create five senior posts. As a counter-proposal the complainants asked for ten posts and certain improvements in promotion.
4. 64. At this point the Society of Administrative and Executive Civil Servants entered the field. Considering that the complaining unions were trying to reserve exclusively for their members higher posts to which general service officials in the Society could also legitimately aspire, the Society, it is alleged, sent a written undertaking to the Government that its members would be prepared to do the work of the customs even in the event of direct action.
5. 65. When industrial action began, it is alleged, the Government set in motion a plan under which officers of the general service " were made to take over from customs officers to perform work outside office hours ". This helped to render ineffective the ban on overtime from 25 January to 24 February 1965.
6. 66. The complainants also contend that the Society's offer to the Government was contrary to " work to rule " restrictions issued by the staff side of the Malta Government Joint Council. The General Workers' Union, the biggest union in Malta, on the other hand, had supported the complainants by ordering those of its members who were customs and excise guards not to undertake any work which was not previously done by them.
7. 67. On 29 January 1965 the complainants informed the Government that they were contemplating more drastic measures because " civil servants directly interested in the dispute were being ordered to perform work normally done by customs officers ". It is alleged that, encouraged by the support of the Society, the Government issued statements commending members of the general service and condemning the customs men and threatening the latter with disciplinary action.
8. 68. The Malta Customs Federation and the Society are both affiliated to the Confederation of Malta Trade Unions. On 1 February 1965 the Federation informed the General Council of the Society's alleged offer to the Government to help to break the strike. The General Council appointed a conciliation commission, but it could not effect a settlement. In the end, it is said, the General Council decided " to censor privately the Society ".
9. 69. On 22 February 1965 discussions with the Government were reopened. The complainants concluded an agreement with the Government and the dispute ended on 24 February. According to this agreement the Government approved various appointments and the creation of four additional senior posts, provision was made for automatic promotion of junior officers after five years' service, and both sides agreed " to refrain from disciplinary action ".
10. 70. In conclusion the complainants ask the I.L.O to censor the Society of Administrative and Executive Civil Servants and to condemn the offer which it made to the Government.
11. 71. In its communication dated 22 May 1965 the Government states that the complaint is directed against another union and that the alleged infringement of trade union rights is not and cannot be attributed to the Government ". In these circumstances the Government does not wish to comment on the substance of the complaint. The Government furnishes a letter received from the Confederation of Malta Trade Unions in which the latter states that it does not concur in the complaint.
12. 72. It appears that the complaining organisations sought a closed-shop agreement for the main purpose of ensuring that promotion to higher customs posts should be reserved for their members. They resorted to direct action in the form of working to rule and banning overtime. The attempt to secure a closed shop was resisted by another organisation, catering for general service personnel, which wished to retain for its members the possibility of access to the posts in question. In order to weaken the direct action by the customs men, the general service organisation voluntarily offered to instruct its members to perform the overtime work normally done by customs officers. Essentially, therefore, the case revolves around the issue of union security arrangements and involves an inter-union struggle over this issue.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 73. In the past the Committee has declined to entertain allegations relating to voluntarily concluded union security arrangements, basing its reasoning on the statement in the report of the Committee on Industrial Relations set up by the International Labour Conference in 1949 that the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), could in no way be interpreted as authorising or prohibiting union security arrangements, such questions being matters for regulation in accordance with national practice. In those cases the Committee has rejected not only allegations relating to union security arrangements already effected by collective agreement but also, as in Case No. 182 relating to the United Kingdom, allegations relating to inter-union disputes occasioned by the fact that, as in the present case, one union was " exerting pressure to secure what, if it should be successful, would be a closed shop and a union security arrangement in fact ".

The Committee's recommendations

1. 74. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the allegations do not call for further examination.