List of essential workers may be extended "arbitrarily" - Coleiro

Opposition social policy co-spokesman Marie-Louise Coleiro argued in parliament yesterday that the Employment and Industrial Relations Bill would undermine workers` rights.

Among them was the workers` right to strike, with the bill "extrordinarily extending" the list of services deemed essential, so that workers providing such services could not strike.

What was even worse was that in terms of the bill, the prime minister could extend the list of essential services simply by order in the Government Gazette without even recourse to parliament.

This was in stark contrast to what then Opposition leader Eddie Fenech Adami used to say at the time of the doctors` strike in 1977.

Ms Coleiro who was resuming her reaction to the bill from Tuesday`s sitting, referred to various parts of the bill which she did not agree with.

She said she agreed with the setting up of the Employment Relations Board, not least because it would assume the role of various wage councils. She disagreed, however, over the board`s composition since it was lopsided against workers and a threat to freedom of association.

Three members of the board would represent the government, which was the biggest employer, three would represent employers and three would represent trade unions. That effectively meant there would be six members to represent employers and three to represent the workers. Furthermore, the three trade union representatives would be nominated by the Council for Economic and Social Development. Three unions formed part of the council, the CMTU, the UHM, which was also part of the CMTU, and the GWU, which had more than twice the membership of the CMTU. The GWU could not be emarginated in this way.

Ms Coleiro observed that the bill would align Malta to the EU`s working time directive after consultation with the board, lopsided as it was against the workers. She was not saying that the directive was bad, but some industries would suffer if its requirements were imposed too quickly.

Referring to wage increases, Ms Coleiro said the government needed to ensure that in announcing such increases, people with a low pension did not suddenly become ineligible for social benefits and assistance they so sorely needed.

The bill, she added, needed to provide safeguards to non-unionised workers, who amounted to some 30 per cent of the labour force.

Turning to occupational health and safety, Ms Coleiro asked what the government would do about implementation of the Seveso directive, particularly with regard to time bomb areas such as Qajjenza and Birzebbuga. The government had been seeking transitional periods in this regard. Had it dropped its request?

On the provisions on special leave, Ms Coleiro said the government was only adding one week`s unpaid maternity leave after the 13 weeks of paid leave given by former Labour governments. She knew of a case of a person who had a difficult pregnancy. In line with EU directives, she should be given alternative work. What would happen if the employer could not give her alternative work?

Ms Coleiro said it was not clear how the proposed Guarantee Fund would operate. It was not right to expect workers to shoulder the burden of an employer going bust, especially when that followed mismanagement and the supposedly bankrupt company officials continued to enjoy a very good lifestyle while workers lost their jobs. To have the workers contribute to the fund would amount to nothing more than a new tax.

Ms Coleiro said she was surprised by the clause on whole time employees with reduced hours. The definition of "pro-rata" was vague and did not solve problems of interpretation which were already being faced by the unions and employers. No mention was made of the need to reconcile labour sector demands with family needs, particularly with regard to female workers.

The Labour MP said many part-time employees were exploited yet the bill did not define the maximum or minimum number of hours which would constitute part-time work. For the minister to say (across the floor) that this was included in the White Paper was not good enough, since other sections of the bill were different from the White Paper. A minimum number of hours of part-time work should, at least, be established to guard against abuse, with benefits being given to workers pro-rata.

Turning to the list of services deemed essential, Ms Coleiro said the list had been extended extraordinarily. Had the government bargained the issue of sympathy strikes and this issue? She was not saying that workers should unjustly resort to strikes, but strike action was an important tool in the workers` hands which should be available for use as a last resort. After all employers could always close down a place of work whenever they wished.

What was even worse was the fact that the bill laid down that the prime minister could arbitrarily extend the list of essential services without recourse to the House. This was akin to the state, before independence, when the Queen could issue "orders in council". This provision was the opposite of what then opposition leader Eddie Fenech Adami had said in 1977 at the time of the doctors` strike.

This bill, clearly, underlined many workers` rights, Ms Coleiro concluded.

Nationalist MP Helen D`Amato referred to Ms Coleiro`s remarks on the list of essential services. What the Labour MP had not said, she said, was that in terms of the bill, the prime minister could extend the list of essential services by order in the gazette "after consultation with the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development" which included the trade unions. Furthermore, workers who provided essential services could refer their disputes to the Joint Negotiating Council.

Ms D`Amato said she could not understand Ms Coleiro`s remarks on the composition of the Employment Relations Board. Her way of thinking would do away with the tripartite concept. Even the composition of the Council for Economic and Social Development was based on this concept.

The Labour MP in the first part of her speech on Tuesday had referred to the findings of a joint assessment paper drawn up between Maltese and EU experts on Malta`s labour sector needs. The paper had pointed out the low educational level of Maltese workers. But this, Ms D`Amato said, was a damnation of the policies of former Labour governments. For the study carried out by the experts was based on the 1995 census, and the workers of the time had suffered the mistaken education policies of the former Labour government, including the way how courses were discontinued, the university had been run down and MCAST was closed. This was in stark contrast to the growth of the educational system under the present government. It was also the present government which set up the Employment Training Corporation, one of whose purposes was to organise training courses for workers.

The Labour MP had asked why the Conditions of Employment Regulation Act and the Industrial Relations Act were being merged in this bill, yet this was something which the constituted bodies themselves had called for so that Malta could have one point of reference on employment law.

Ms D`Amato observed how the bill strengthened the negotiation process when industrial disputes developed. It also provided that part time workers had a right to vocational training and they had a right to be informed when full time vacancies occurred. Part timers were also being given protection from unfair dismissal.

The bill provided for protection against discrimination against persons with disability in line with the Equal Opportunities Act.

This bill strengthened the concept of equal pay for work of equal value and introduced new measure for redress when workers suffered harassment. Such cases could not be heard by the Industrial Tribunal, which could even order compensation to the aggrieved.

Mr Leo Brincat (MLP) said that while several EU social laws were praiseworthy, it was a mistake for the government to try to give the impression that change could not be introduced in Malta without EU membership.

The Labour MP said the Labour Party had purposely stood back on commenting on this bill until employers and trade unions had their say. But the party never delayed comment on matters of principle.

That was shown by its comments on restructuring. Restructuring should not be seen as a threat to jobs. Where restructuring was handled carefully, any inevitable job losses were more than compensated by new jobs.

The same argument applied to privatisation. The opposition, however, disagreed with the methods being followed by the present government, which left the trade unions in the dark about what was happening at Maltapost and MIA. Privatisation could not be built on the premise of uncertainty if it was to be successful.

Mr Brincat said the MCESD should serve as a think tank on various labour sector concepts, such as the reduced working week, when need, and should not be used only as a vehicle used by the finance minister before the budget.

Clearly, the relationship between the trade unions and employers needed to improve. It was positive to note that the recent GWU`s wreath laying ceremony at the workers` monument had included representation of all the political parties and the main employers` organisations. Employers, after all, depended on their workers, and vice versa. All needed to work together, all should share responsibilities and plan ahead together in the face of the demands of globalisation.

The worst scenario was when trade unions were in dispute with each other That was detrimental to themselves and the country.

Mr Brincat said he was perplexed that over the past few days the reaction of the employers organisations following the publication of the bill had been mute.

The opposition`s view on the bill was that the economic environment had to be such that it attracted job-creating investment without curtailing workers` rights and social justice. Industrial peace did not come if sympathy strikes or sit-in strikes were made illegal. The former Labour government had rationalised the number of public holidays in the name of efficiency, amid much uproar. Yet there was no reaction from employers when the present government increased the number of holidays.

Now employers were urging the Labour Party to promise to reduce holidays when re-elected. The MLP`s reply was "no way," especially as the employers had not reacted against the present government when it increased public holidays.

Mr Brincat said Malta had to have a flexible labour market which made the country competitive, without eroding workers` rights. This was something which objective employers and trade unionists understood. Both sides, therefore needed to use caution in the public statements they made.

The government, on the other hand, had a duty to ensure that it did not use industrial disputes as a way to incite public opinion against trade unions. That only further soured industrial relations.

Mr Brincat said one had to see how the provisions of the law on "whistle blowing" would work when workers reported malpractices by employers.

The bill, he said, needed to go into greater detail on definite contracts of work. Furthermore, the concept of harassment should not be limited to the sexual. Harassment could, for example be based on one`s religion.