The first Hall of the Civil Court has temporarily upheld an application for a prohibitory injunction against the Malta Dockers Union, as the applicants took issue with a legal notice which came into force just before the general election

The application was filed by 50 self-employed drivers who are sub-contracted by the Union to perform driving duties on the terminals of The Malta Freeport. They requested the court to refrain the Union from engaging new workers to work.

On 5 May 2017, government issued a legal notice which made it so that if port workers, who meet certain conditions, pass away are injured, their son or daughter can replace them and take-over said job.

The original notice read that no  port  worker  who  is  registered  in  the  Port  Workers Register shall, on death or retirement or on being medically boarded out, be replaced by a son  or daughter or brother or sister s the case may be. The legal notice added a number of new provisions, such as: "Provided that this regulation shall not apply to those port workers who died or die through a fatal accident on the place of work during the performance of their duties. Such port workers shall be replaced by a son or daughter subject to the provisions of these regulations," And "Provided further that port workers who prior to the 10th day of June, 1975 were licensed to work in the general cargo stevedores or in the lightermen or in the port labourers section, shall continue to be replaced by a son or daughter or brother or sister, subject to the provisions of these regulation"

The applicants indicated that a number of the new service providers are related to members of the Malta Dockers Union. If this is allowed to continue, the applicants said, they would be prejudiced against, as it will create a situation which goes against the basic industrial right of equal pay for equal work.

The applicants said that they had signed a contract for service to work for the union inside Malta Freeport Terminals Ltd. They argued that, despite the contract is called a contract of service, and thus is prima facie are being employed as self-employed, they are still considered employees, highlighting certain legal provisions.

The court, presided over by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, upheld the application temporarily and put the case for hearing on 13 October.