From temporary to permanent jobs

The government last week published a legal notice on the right of certain public sector employees working on a fixed-term basis to have their contract converted into one on an indefinite basis, that is, a permanent full-time job.

This regulation was published in order to bring our position in line with EU law.

It will mean that several persons who have been working on a fixed-term basis with the public sector and the public service for more than four years will now automatically become entitled to a permanent contract.

Over the past years I have received several complaints from persons who had been engaged on a fixed-term contract with the public sector for, say, six months, one year or three years, but whose contracts had been repeatedly extended over the years.

I know of cases where a six-month contract had been extended for 16 years running.

As a result of EU membership, Malta adopted EU law on fixed-term contracts which seeks to "prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts". This means that employers should not engage a worker on a fixed-term contract when, in fact, they need someone on a more permanent basis. And once the contract is renewed beyond a certain period of time - four years in our case - then, it should automatically be transformed into a permanent contract.

Now, in truth, flexibility is good and should be promoted. That should be clear. And fixed-term contracts do offer an important measure of flexibility for employers. That should be kept.

However, this should not mean that fixed-term workers whose contract has been repeatedly renewed for long years should be left indefinitely in a position of uncertainty on their security of tenure.

Prior to membership, Maltese law was changed to reflect EU law. Except for one point. It was made applicable only to the private sector, not the public sector. In other words, our public administration exempted itself, as employer, from this obligation.

I have long protested against this state of play because I argue that, if a right is available to private sector workers, then it should equally be available to those working in the public sector.

I have raised this issue with the European Commission which threatened to institute infringement proceedings against Malta on this matter.

I therefore warmly welcome last week's decision because it gives meaning to one of the rights that workers acquired as a result of EU membership. It delivers another benefit of EU membership. This is not something that we acquired thanks to those who wanted to keep us out.

I do understand that it has not been an easy decision because of its far-reaching implications. For that, I welcome it even more.

On the basis of last week's legal notice, employees engaged with the public sector/service for more than four years should be receiving, within six months, a letter stating whether they qualify to become entitled to an indefinite contract and on what conditions. Those whose contract has not exceeded four years will also be receiving a letter informing them of whether they will be retained on an indefinite basis.

On the other hand, I have some doubts on the exclusion of some categories of contracts from the benefits of this regulation on the basis of "objective reasons".

I do doubt what objective reason there could be to prevent persons engaged as "casuals" or as "temporary substitute employees" from benefitting from this right, especially when a "casual" contract has been extended for more than four years.

Or what objective reason is there to exclude a person engaged in a management position or on a mission or posting abroad from benefitting from this right?

In any case, it appears that the new regulation (paragraph seven) nevertheless makes up by granting the benefit of a permanent contract to all those who have already worked for more than four years under a fixed-term contract even if they would not have otherwise qualified.

Either way, those who feel they should not have been excluded may have recourse to the court, which will be the final arbiter of whether certain categories should have been excluded in the first place.

But last week's legal notice remains a very good step forward and I welcome it.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.