The Other Side of New Labour Law with Patricia Graham

Since 1er août 2025, Malta’s labour laws and residency system has undergone some of its most significant changes in years, especially for third-country nationals (TCNs). The first phase of the new Labour Migration Policy introduced mandatory job vacancy advertising, stricter employer eligibility rules, and a €600 fee for new single permit applications and changes of employer. At the same time, the grace period for those changing or leaving jobs was extended from 10 days to 30 days, with a possible 60-day extension for applicants who can prove financial means. The change promised more flexibility but quickly revealed new layers of complexity.

Then came the October rollout, bringing another wave of reforms including the requirement for all salaries to be paid electronically, tighter control over employer thresholds, and more administrative checks through Jobsplus et Identité. While these updates were introduced as steps toward greater transparency and efficiency, many employers and TCNs say they have instead created higher costs, more confusion, and less certainty about how to remain compliant.

To better understand what these changes of labour law mean in practice, we spoke with Patricia Graham, a long-standing advocate for fair labour practices and migrant rights. From her front-line experience assisting workers and employers, she offers a clear view of how Malta’s new system is unfolding and whether it is delivering fairness or deepening frustration.

The Reality Behind the Reforms: Patricia Graham on Malta’s Labour Changes

1. Since the 1st of August, we’ve seen several major shifts in how Identità manages third-country national applications. From your perspective, what have been the most noticeable changes on the ground for workers and employers?

More money from the TCN, more frustration from the employers.

2. The increase in application fees, especially the €600 cost for a change of employer, has been widely criticised. What kind of financial or emotional strain is this creating for applicants, and do you think the fee structure is fair or justified?

The introduction of the €600 fee for changing employers highlights a profound disconnect between policymakers and the third-country national (TCN) workforce. Each new policy adjustment seems to further increase the financial burden on workers. This is particularly acute in the hospitality sector, where many employees earn less than €1,200 per month. The result is a situation in which workers are left with even fewer options; many are unable to seek better-paid roles or improved working conditions due to prohibitive costs, and some may feel compelled to remain with employers who do not treat them fairly.

Each new policy adjustment seems to further increase the financial burden on workers, while doing little to protect them.

Moreover, these policy changes are having a broader impact on the labour market. Many employers now find it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain staff, as the increased costs and administrative hurdles deter potential candidates from changing jobs. Notably, each government initiative purportedly designed to improve conditions for migrant workers often ends up imposing further financial strain on those very individuals. This continual cycle of new policies and added costs serves primarily to bolster government revenue, while migrant workers remain vulnerable to exploitation and have limited protection against abuse. The rationale behind claims that these policies are protective of migrant workers appears, therefore, highly questionable.

3. The grace period for renewals and reapplications was extended from 10 days to 30 or 60 days. In theory, this should give applicants more time — but in practice, is it helping, or are you seeing new complications emerging from these timeframes?

The recent policy change, while broadly welcomed and widely recognised as necessary before May 2026, has nonetheless been introduced in a manner that appears haphazard and lacking in clarity. There is significant uncertainty surrounding how the new rules will be enforced in practice.

When a worker chooses to change employer, or is terminated from their position, there are currently no straightforward guidelines outlining how they can prove their legal right to remain in Malta. This issue is particularly acute because, upon termination, the worker is required to return their residency work permit to Identità.

A key concern is the practical reality faced by workers who, after handing back their residency work permit, may be stopped by authorities in public. Without physical documentation, it becomes extremely challenging for them to demonstrate their legal status in the country. Unlike other jurisdictions, Malta does not maintain an accessible database that can be used to instantly verify a person’s current position or legal standing. This lack of infrastructure leaves workers vulnerable and unsure of how to prove their legitimacy during the transition period between jobs.

4. Many employers report uncertainty about the new threshold system for hiring TCNs. From your experience, are companies finding it more difficult to bring in or retain foreign workers under these rules?

A significant issue stems from what appears to be a lack of common sense and strategic planning in managing Malta’s migrant workforce. Rather than implementing a temporary pause on new applications and focusing on employing those already present in the country, the authorities continue to accept new applications from abroad. This is largely because each non-refundable application fee directly adds to government revenue, creating a financial incentive to keep the system open, regardless of workforce needs.

The government faces mounting pressure from the electorate to address Malta’s growing population. Ironically, this overpopulation is largely a result of the government’s own policies; there was little to no planning or preparation before the influx of foreign workers was encouraged. Instead of establishing clear quotas for each sector or determining the exact number of staff needed, the doors were opened widely, prioritizing immediate revenue generation over thoughtful workforce management.

It’s important to note that, beyond the government’s application fees, foreign workers themselves also face significant personal expenses. Typically, they pay between €1,200 and €1,500 just to secure employment in Malta, not including any additional agency fees. This financial burden, coupled with the lack of strategic workforce planning, highlights the disconnect between policy decisions and the lived realities of foreign workers in Malta.

5. You’ve been vocal on social media about trying to assist people through these changes. What kind of complaints or problems are most common among the applicants who contact you?

One of the most significant challenges facing applicants is the high rate of employment rejections, which often stem from a widespread misunderstanding of the new threshold system. Many individuals are being turned down because the company they have applied to has already reached its hiring threshold for third-country nationals. However, even employers themselves frequently do not know what their own thresholds are. Currently, numerous rejections are being issued due to employer incompetence and a general lack of familiarity with the updated procedures.

There is a notable absence of clear guidelines outlining how employers can determine their current threshold status prior to submitting an application. This lack of transparency makes it extremely difficult for both employers and applicants to know in advance whether an application will be refused on the basis of these thresholds. Furthermore, there is no practical way for a prospective employee to verify if a company has already reached its hiring limit.

While some critics argue that migrant workers should conduct more thorough research before seeking employment in Malta, the reality is that the rules and requirements change so frequently that it is nearly impossible for workers to fully understand the system before arriving. These workers often pay a non-refundable fee of about €600 to submit their application, only to have it rejected for reasons they could not have foreseen or researched in advance. This situation is particularly unfair when an applicant pays €600 to apply for a job with a new employer, only to discover, through no fault of their own, that the employer is not permitted to hire them due to threshold limitations.

The applicant ultimately loses their application fee, underscoring the perception that the system is primarily focused on revenue rather than fairness or transparency.

6. Do you believe that Identità and other relevant authorities have been transparent and consistent in communicating these policy changes, or are the current frustrations mainly due to unclear information and shifting procedures?

No! It is abundantly clear that there is a significant lack of transparency and consistency from Identità and other relevant authorities regarding the communication of labour law policy changes. This does not seem accidental; rather, it appears to be a deliberate choice. A major source of frustration is the ongoing refusal of JobsPlus and Identità to collaborate effectively. These two departments operate separately, but in reality, they should be integrated and working together on a unified platform.

At present, employers who have reached their quota of workers are not immediately prevented from submitting further applications. This is due to Identità not having access to up-to-date information about employer thresholds. As a result, applications can remain pending or be left in the hands of third parties for several months before any decision is made. It is concerning that it can take three to four months just to inform an applicant that their prospective employer has already exceeded the permitted threshold for workers.

7. From your viewpoint, have these new measures actually achieved what they were intended to – improved regulation and oversight – or have they mostly created new barriers and frustrations for legitimate workers and employers in Malta?

The introduction of these new measures appears to have been driven primarily by a desire to satisfy public opinion, rather than a genuine attempt to create a fair and effective system. There has been minimal effort to address the persistent issue of unscrupulous agencies inundating Malta with fraudulent applications, and the situation remains largely unregulated.

A particularly troubling pattern has emerged, as evidenced by recent cases: workers are brought to Malta from overseas, complete the full administrative process, including the issuance of their residency and work permits, and proceed to report for their new positions. However, upon arrival, they are often told there is no actual work available. The standard response from employers is simply, “Give us a few weeks and we will come back to you,” leaving the worker in limbo.

Meanwhile, the employers, having benefited financially through the agents who facilitated the worker’s arrival, face no repercussions. The system, as it stands, allows these employers to escape accountability, knowing that workers who have been wronged are simply sent out of the country and cannot seek recourse.

Before we concluded, Patricia shared one simple measure she believes could bring immediate change:

If an individual receives an approval-in-principle letter followed by the issuance of a work permit that is tied to a specific employer, the 40-hour contract should immediately become valid and payable from the very first day. This would put an end to the exploitative practices currently employed by some employers. It’s a straightforward solution that could be implemented overnight.

The Way Forward

Patricia Graham’s perspective sheds light on a troubling imbalance in Malta’s new labour law and residency framework: one that continues to place the greatest burden on those with the fewest protections. The recent reforms, introduced under the banner of efficiency and regulation, have instead deepened uncertainty for thousands of third-country nationals and the employers who depend on them.

The reason we are publishing this conversation is simple: to highlight the human cost of policy without fairness, and to call for a more equitable, transparent, and humane framework – one that values workers as contributors.

Equity in employment law means recognising that third-country nationals are not just statistics or short-term solutions, but people who build Malta’s economy and community every day.

Real reform will come not through more fees or rigid rules, but through clarity, accountability, and compassion.

PATRICIA GRAHAM

Autres lectures