A cloud of uncertainty hangs over the future of pending Industrial Tribunal cases, following the Government’s decision to remove six of its chairpersons. The issue is at the heart of a disagreement between the Social Dialogue Ministry and the Malta Employers Association.

The association says that, according to the tribunal, pending cases will have to be reassigned to new chairpersons.

The ministry, however, argues that the law allows pending cases to be heard by those whose resignation has been accepted.

Last week this newspaper revealed that the Government had requested all tribunal heads to hand in their resignation, with the ministry saying that “this is standard practice whenever there is a change in government”.

In a statement, employers yesterday referred to an official written notification from the tribunal which said sessions had been cancelled because the chairpersons had been removed and were no longer authorised to hear the cases. The cases would be heard by a new chairperson.

In a swift reply, the ministry said that those chairpersons whose resignation had been accepted would continue to preside over pending cases in accordance with Chapter 452 of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act.

The ministry also refuted claims that the new appointments have skewed the tribunal in favour of the General Workers’ Union at the expense of employers. The chairpersons came from various fields of expertise and had been chosen on the basis of their competence, said the ministry.

In its statement the association pointed out that six out of the 11 chairpersons were in the past employed by the GWU or closely related to its officials.

While acknowledging that the ministry had the authority to remove a chairman or woman, the MEA pointed out that the minister was not vested with the powers to interrupt a case in progress.

Employers said that the only chairman who refused to hand in his resignation had guaranteed his right to conclude his pending cases.

The association said that even though the integrity of the appointed persons was not in question, the manner in which this issue had been handled raised serious concerns.