In my real life, I have to interact with the Industrial Tribunal quite a bit. Everyone involved in cases there always gives basically the same respect due to a member of the judiciary to the chairpersons of the Tribunal, which is no bad thing at all.
To an extent, the law is lacking, in that it allows the panel of chairpersons to be varied by the Prime Minister, provided he consults with the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, as he does when appointing the chairpersons.
This is not the only stricture on the PM's right to decide whether Bloggs J. or Smith B. should remain in situ: for any case said Bloggs or Smith is handling, he or she shall remain in place notwithstanding the fact that the PM may have removed him or her from the panel of chairpersons.
In this light, and certainly in the light of the spirit of the law, you will, if you have any grasp of the notion of judicial or quasi-judicial independence, that is to say if you have any grasp of the most basic of democratic principles, be very worried by the piece that appeared in the Sunday Times today.
We were told that the panel of chairpersons is in limbo because they don't know whether their resignations have been accepted.
We were also told that they were asked for, and it appears handed in, their offers of resignation on the change of Government.
No mention was made of the PM consulting the MCESD, except we were told that he didn't, and not even an eyebrow appears to have been raised at the sheer arrogance displayed towards people who, in perhaps a limited, but nonetheless very important, sphere, sit in judgement on pretty fundamental rights.
The Industrial Tribunal is an independent body of men and women who hear and decide employment matters, often with Government-owned agencies, authorities and companies being one of the contending parties. The arrogant - and very likely illegal - demand for their resignation simply because the Government has changed - and their acquiescence thereto, truth be told - must have an impact on the popular perception of their impartiality.
Practitioners might feel that this perception is unjustified, but perception is king, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
To put it in stark terms: if Mr J. Citizen is suing XYZ Ltd, a Government-owned company, for unfair dismissal, and the issue is being heard by Mr J. Bloggs, who depends on his or her retention as a Tribunal Chairperson on whether his or her demanded resignation has been accepted, will aforesaid J. Citizen perceive the hearing as being one that is free of fear or favour?
It is up to the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for labour matters to try to get Pandora back into her box, but I fear they might have something of a difficult trick to pull, this time.