I feel bound to comment on Mario Schiavone’s letter entitled “No bullying by the education ministry” (TMIS, 8April).

First, the Ombudsman did say that there was no misconduct on the part of the Ministry, but that would mean there was no foul play. It does not exclude responsibility. The Ministry had years to defend its position but failed to convince the Ombudsman. On applying for a teacher’s post, my credentials and application were all evaluated by boards and people who were directly or indirectly under the authority of the Ministry of Education – therefore, Mr Schiavone, in the chain of command it is the Ministry that is at the top. If this isn’t so, then why didn’t the Ombudsman dismiss my case against it right from the start? Why did he recommend the ministry pay because “once it has been established that complaint’s qualification is equivalent to a Master’s degree and not to a diploma, as previously stated by the MEIC, I recommend that the Directorate pays the arrears due to complainant...” (You failed to quote in full).

Second, nowhere does the Ombudsman recommend payments ex gratia which you should have explained means I would be getting paid as a favour and not as my right. Nor does the Ombudsman recommend I forfeit any other legal claims to the case – so why add conditions not mentioned in the Ombudsman’s final decision? Tell me, Mr Schiavone, in what democratic country does one have to give up any legal rights or claims in order to get what is his? Would you or the Minister do so? When the AG stated that ministers gave themselves the €500 euros a week increase in an ‘insensitive’ way, the ministers continued taking them stating they had a ‘right’ to them. Did they receive the honoraria ex gratia? Did they forfeit any other rights to get them? So why do I have to?

Third, true they don’t have to pay me by law, but what about the law of ethics?

And finally, Mr Schiavone, how can I consider five years arrears as a “full settlement” when I had been underpaid for 12 years? I feel the conditions imposed go against my dignity and I have offered wording that would respect the dignity of both parties – a payment “in accordance with the Ombudsman’s decision” – short and sweet.

Joe Falzon

QALA