Recommendation not implemented: Final Opinion on unjust denial of qualification allowance to a government school teacher

Recommendation not implemented: Final Opinion on unjust denial of qualification allowance to a government school teacher

Published October 23, 2024

In accordance with Article 22(4) of the Ombudsman Act, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Education, have forwarded to the House of Representatives the Final Opinion on a case concerning a government school teacher’s entitlement to a qualification allowance.  The case raises issues of improper discrimination in the context of the principle of legitimate expectation.

The complaint

The complaint was lodged on 23rd March 2024 by a government school teacher of Maltese, holding a Master's degree in Teaching and Learning. In February 2019, the complainant commenced a course leading to a Certificate in Maltese Proofreading from the University of Malta. The course was successfully completed in February of the following year. He subsequently applied for a qualification allowance, which at the time when he had commenced the course was being granted to other teachers with a similar qualification.

Despite submitting his application, the complainant received no response and was verbally informed in 2021 that his application was on a waiting list. After further enquiries, he was eventually told that his application could not be found, prompting him to resubmit it. On 17th January 2024, the Human Resources Directorate informed him that he was ineligible for the allowance, as his certificate was at MQF Level 5, while his current teaching appointment required an MQF Level 6 qualification.

Facts and findings

The complaint was forwarded to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry responsible for education on 4th April 2024. In response, the Permanent Secretary referred to the same clause in the PSMC Manual of Allowances to which the complainant had been referred by Human Resources, to wit that teachers holding an MQF Level 5 qualification were ineligible for the allowance if their teaching post required a higher MQF qualification.

However, the Commissioner for Education found that this policy was applied inconsistently. Another similar case decided in April 2023 involved a teacher who was denied the allowance after completing the same proofreading course. The Commissioner had noted in that case that the complainant had started the course at a time when teachers in similar positions and situations were receiving the allowance. In other words, the policy had been changed after that the complainant had commenced the course. The same reasoning and considerations applied to the present case, as the complainant commenced the course in 2019 when the policy was different.

Furthermore, it was revealed that over 175 other teachers with MQF Level 5 qualifications still receive the allowance (under the “old” policy) despite holding higher qualifications, indicating an outstanding issue of improper discrimination. The policy change, implemented after a 2020 audit by the People and Standards Division, had created an unfair situation for teachers like the complainant, who had a legitimate expectation based on the practice in force at the time of the commencement of the course.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner for Education concluded that the complainant’s case involved improper discrimination. The blanket decision in 2020 to stop paying MQF Level 5 allowances to teachers whose posts required a higher qualification had been applied inconsistently and unfairly.

The Commissioner recommended that the complainant be paid the MQF Level 5 allowance retroactively from the date when he would have originally received it, based on the practices in place when he commenced the course in 2019.

Outcome

While the Ministry for Education has acknowledged the principle of legitimate expectation outlined in the Final Opinion, it has, for reason delineated in correspondence with the Commissioner and which was also laid on the Table of the House of Representative, not implemented the recommendation. Consequently, the matter was reported to the Prime Minister, and subsequently a report was sent to Parliament.