Equal Pay In Practice: The Court of Appeal Weighs In

Industrial Tribunal Decision

In a decision delivered on 13 February 2026, the Industrial Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) considered a claim brought by a former Senior Manager against the Transport Malta Authority concerning differences in remuneration between employees occupying the same grade. The claimant alleged that other Senior Managers had received salary increases which he had not received.

A central issue was the treatment of performance-related salary increases. While the Tribunal held that the claimant was not automatically entitled to a performance bonus, it distinguished this from increases which, although initially awarded on the basis of performance, were subsequently carried forward and incorporated into the employee’s salary in later years.

The Tribunal considered that, once such an increase continued to form part of an employee’s remuneration from year to year, it effectively became an increase in salary rather than a one-off performance award.

Referring to Article 27 of the Employment and Industrial Relations Act (Chapter 452 of the Laws of Malta), which provides that employees in the same class of employment are entitled to the same rate of remuneration for work of equal value, the Tribunal held that the Authority could not apply such permanent salary increases differently between employees occupying the same Senior Manager grade.

The Authority argued that the claimant’s responsibilities differed from those of other Senior Managers and that he did not have employees reporting to him. The Tribunal rejected this justification, noting that the claimant had nevertheless remained within the same Senior Manager grade and that no evidence had been produced to show that he was incapable of assuming responsibilities equivalent to those of the other Senior Managers.

Accordingly, while recognising the Authority’s discretion to award performance bonuses, the Tribunal concluded that the continued incorporation of such awards into the salaries of other Senior Managers resulted in a discriminatory difference in remuneration. It awarded the claimant €54,092.20.

Appeal Decision

The Industrial Tribunal’s decision was appealed by the Authority, which argued that the Tribunal had incorrectly applied Article 27 of Chapter 452 and that the claimant did not perform work of equal value to that performed by the other Senior Managers.

The Court of Appeal held that the arguments concerning the nature of the claimant’s work and the fact that no employees reported to him were questions of fact. Since appeals from decisions of the Industrial Tribunal are limited to points of law, these findings could not be reconsidered on appeal.

The Court therefore declared the appeal null and confirmed the Industrial Tribunal’s decision.

Would the Case have been Decided in the Same Way under the Recently Introduced Equal Pay Framework?

The case was decided under the old regime of Article 27 of Chapter 452, which provides that employees in the same class of employment are entitled to the same rate of remuneration for work of equal value. Article 27 imposed a stricter equal pay standard than the Equal Pay (Transparency and Reporting) Regulations, 2026, as it only allowed differences in pay between employees performing work of equal value by reference to different salary scales.

The Equal Pay (Transparency and Reporting) Regulations, 2026 specifically permit differences in pay based on objective criteria, including performance and competence. The distinction between the old and new equal pay regimes is particularly relevant to the facts of this case. Performance could, under the Regulations, constitute an objective basis for a difference in pay. However, the Authority failed to demonstrate that the salary differences between the claimant and the other Senior Managers were attributable to performance or any other objective criterion.

Where an employer places employees within the same category, any differences in pay between those employees would therefore need to be supported by objective criteria. Accordingly, given that the Authority had categorised the claimant as a Senior Manager but failed to sufficiently establish any objective criterion justifying the difference in pay, the outcome may well have been the same had the case been decided under the Regulations.

The claimant was assisted in these proceedings by Dr. Christine Calleja.