GRTU opposes harsher discrimination fines envisioned in draft law

The GRTU small business chamber has come out strongly against proposals to raise anti-discrimination fines, describing them as “disproportionate”. 

A bill intended to promote equality proposes the increase of the maximum fine for discrimination and sexual harassment to €5,000, which is more than double the current maximum of €2,329. The current six months’ imprisonment potential will be maintained.  

Characteristics protected from discrimination under the proposed law are age, race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, beliefs, disability, family responsibilities, family status, HIV status, and maternity. 

The bill proposes the establishment of a Human Rights and Equality Commission, that will be directly responsible to Parliament, to replace the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality. It will be tasked with investigating cases of alleged discrimination, and will be able to fine guilty employers who fail to implement anti-discrimination measures within a specified timeframe. It will also be able to impose additional daily fines of up to €500 until the discrimination infringement is brought to an end.

However, the GRTU said in its most recent newsletter that the proposed daily penalty is “astronomical” and “exceeds any other penalty that may be imposed under any Maltese law”.

“A daily penalty must be imposed, but it must reflect the realities of the Maltese society,” it said. 

The bill holds employers responsible for suppressing discrimination at the workplace, and financially liable for their failure to do so. Directors, managers and secretaries of guilty companies, partnerships and associations, will be deemed personally culpable unless they can prove that the offence took place without their knowledge and that they exercised all possible due diligence to prevent such an offence. 

The Human Rights Commission will not be restricted to investigating complaints, but will be allowed to take its own initiative, a power that the small business chamber took issue with. 

“Alternatively, the ex officio powers of the Commission should be limited to recommendations,” it said. “Similarly, it is unacceptable for the Commission to have powers that enable it to enter any premises at any time it deems fit and conduct an investigation. We believe that this should only be possible if a magistrate grants a search warrant.”

Moreover, it took issue with the bill’s definition of gender identity as a protected characteristic, that includes “expressions of gender, including name, dress, speech and mannerisms”. 

“While we agree that one should not be discriminated against on the basis of gender identity, a degree of discretion must be allowed to an employer in relation to dress and mannerisms at the workplace,” it said. “Respect to the workplace ethos needs to be a person’s prerogative and consequently the Act cannot allow for abuse of work environment protocol by claiming freedom of dress or mannerisms”.