I’ll be very disappointed if all or any of the cases that were being heard by the Industrial Tribunal chairmen who recently ‘offered their resignation’ are in any way stymied, reassigned and basically interrupted. Until now, we don’t really know what the official position on the matter is. So much for social dialogue.

The Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties has apparently dissociated itself from the claim made by the Malta Employers’ Association – namely that in view of the resignations, pending cases will no longer be heard by outgoing chairmen and will now have to be reassigned and heard from scratch.

The ministry has dismissed this as flippant and has called upon the public not to be so gullible, or at least to ascertain the truth beforehand. Easier said than done – I can tell the minister that much.

As an interested member of the public and a lawyer with a pending case before the Industrial Tribunal, I have repeatedly tried to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of this elusory claim, with no success. I would imagine that the tribunal or the relative ministry is as close as one gets to the horse’s mouth in such a matter. To date, neither has been able to give me a straight answer either way.

The Industrial Tribunal is definitely in limbo and still doesn’t know what is happening and whether it’s coming or going. I was on the phone with them on Wednesday morning asking whether a case, which began in 2009, and which, four years later, is at last up for final submissions and judgment, will continue to be heard by the same chairman. They are still not in a position to respond.

Needless to say, anything else would be sheer irresponsibility and utter lunacy. The idea of starting the dispute over and virtually turning the clock back should be an instant no-no and anathema to the Government, which promised to usher in a new era of judicial reform and to create an unprecedented level of swiftness in the courts. And yes, this is a quasi-court, where people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake. And yes, there should be cohesion between ministries, even though this particular tribunal may not fall directly within the remit of the Justice Ministry.

The decision to remove and replace six chairmen was a very bad and distasteful call to begin with. It raises far too many questions, which are best left unanswered. If the independence of the tribunal was ever in doubt and if proof was ever needed that the tribunal is not independent, this is certainly proof enough.

These resignations have certainly (and unfairly) put the integrity of the tribunal into serious doubt because if the executive can interfere so blatantly with whom it proposes and whom it disposes, that in itself is a huge incentive for the ‘appointed’ to find favour with the incumbent government and is a consequent slur on the independence of this judicial body.

I have full faith in the chairman who was hearing our dispute and I believe I also speak for the other party in the dispute. This particular gentleman heard our case with astounding precision, ease and correctness and always respected the principles of fair hearing and equality of arms. His resignation will undoubtedly be a great loss to the tribunal.

But leaving that aside, the principle just doesn’t sit well with me at all. Any attempt by the minister to draw a parallel with similar resignations and standard practice employed by the previous government doesn’t cut it.

I am never in favour of turfing anyone out, but you simply can’t compare a chairman of a judicial body, as is the Industrial Tribunal, to a permanent secretary or chairman of an administrative body. This is definitely an area which requires regulation and reform. These people need to have security of tenure if their position is to remain tenable.

• Moving on to another area crying out for regulation and which ought to be a matter of great concern.

I am sure you have all been beeped a few times in your lifetime by your mobile service providers luring you into winning a car or trip to some exotic destination by asking you to answer a set of questions through SMS, against payment of course. The more questions you answer, the more you pay, and presumably, the greater your chances of winning.

These resignations have certainly (and unfairly) put the integrity of the Industrial Tribunal into serious doubt

I say presumably because I am instinctively sceptical of similar schemes and am always left wondering whether there is even a car or a trip up for grabs or whether this is just some bottomless pit of questions destined to go nowhere.

As a result I never participate.

A friend of mine learned the hard way. He succumbed, and 50 questions later, he was asked to reply to a question he had already answered. Which, of course, alerted his suspicions as to the legitimacy of the software, the truly randomness of the prize-winner or whether there even was a prize to begin (or end) with.

He took the organisation to task but received no joy or comfort whatsoever apart from the flimsy assurance and insistence that he was definitely a legitimate participant. Apparently, the mere fact that the competition consists of easy-to-answer questions, automatically excludes it from the scrutiny of any authority – be it the Malta Communications Authority, the Lotteries and Gaming Authority or the Consumer Affairs Authority.

For some reason, it reminds me of yet another area for which there is no scrutiny or clear separation of roles – the matter of water and electricity meters and bills – where the people who bill you are the same people who are sent to check and change your meter.

Imagine querying your bill and then having the same people who are computing it – who have a vested interest in exculpating and exonerating themselves from any responsibility or wrongdoing – check it!

It’s time these mega-organisations that trample all over our lives, get their comeuppance.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com