MP hits out at opposition stand on employment relations bill

Nationalist MP Jason Azzopardi said yesterday that the fact that the opposition had said it would vote against the Employment and Industrial Relations Bill meant it would be voting against 23 new rights being given to workers.

Dr Azzopardi told parliament that this was a watershed bill as the rights and obligations of workers and employers were being better defined and extended.

The government was granting workers new rights which other workers abroad had to fight for. They included parental leave and urgent leave for family reasons, increased privileged pay, the setting up of the Guarantee Fund and protection for workers working reduced hours, for part-timers and those on definite contract. There was also protection against victimisation, harassment, and discrimination and for foreign workers working here legally. Workers would be given protection in case of mergers or when their company ownership changed. They would also have a right for basic information about the state of their companies and the authorities had to be informed before collective dismissals. There would also be wider jurisdiction for the Industrial Tribunal and a more effective conciliation mechanism. Workers whose services were considered essential would have the right to refer any industrial disputes to the Joint Negotiating Council since such workers could not go out on strike.

It was highly ironic that the Labour Party, which said it was the workers` party, would vote against this bill and therefore against all this. The opposition`s rejection of this bill was even stranger because the Labour government in May 1998 had taken decisions on various points which had been included in this bill.

This bill, Dr Azzopardi said, had a strong social bearing because the government rightly believed that social and economic development went together.

The bill replaced the outdated provisions of the Conditions of Employment Regulation Act and the Industrial Relations Act. It would enable Malta to adhere to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and align Malta to EU directives - the EU having been widely praised for the social benchmarks it set.

This bill, Dr Azzopardi said, was a message of confidence to workers and employers. It also showed the government meant business and was finally moving legislation which everybody had long been saying was overdue.

Mr Michael Bonnici (PN) said he wanted to make a strong appeal for both sides to work together on this bill in the interests of the workers. After all both sides said they held the interests of the workers at heart.

Politics, he insisted, should be left out of trade unionism and industrial relations because it divided the workers.

He also complained that certain employers, despite having a good cash flow, did not pay their employees regularly, a situation which was causing hardship. Employees, he said, should report such cases because the law would henceforth offer them greater protection against this abuse.

Notary Joe Cilia (MLP) observed that the bill did not make any reference to discrimination on the basis of age. Unfortunately, workers aged 40 were often discriminated upon and it was difficult for them to find a job. He could not understand this, since such workers had the benefit of experience and had still a lot to give to their employers.

He said some employers were engaging workers on probation and then abusively dismissed them just before the probation period expired, without giving reasons.

It was not right that workers were provided with food and uniforms, only to have the costs deducted from their salaries.

It was regrettable, Notary Cilia said, that the self-employed were not mentioned in this bill. They too had to have their well deserved rights protected.

Concluding, Notary Cilia said trade unions should be involved in matters such as shop opening hours since changes in this sector could affect the working conditions of shop employees.

Mr Carmelo Abela (MLP) said that while measures to improve workers` rights were welcome, one had to look at the wider situation affecting workers. Many employers were facing cashflow problems and as a result workers were not being paid. An increasing number of workers were being made redundant and the cost of living was rising for all of them. It was a situation which was leading to industrial unrest.

The government could not ignore such problems and act as if all was well.

It was unfortunate, Mr Abela said, that this bill was being moved only because the EU was prodding the government to do so.

This bill, he said, needed to be accompanied by proper enforcement of its provisions and related laws, particularly that on occupational health and safety.

He asked how the proposed new Guarantee Fund would operate and whether workers would be obliged to contribute to it.

Serious auditing of this fund would also be necessary.

He observed that the members of the Employment Relations Board would also be members of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development. He hoped this would not lead to overlapping.

Mr Abela said he agreed with the calls being made for the definition of "discrimination" to include a ban on discrimination on the basis of age or sexual orientation. Many vacancies which were being advertised asked for past working experience. This should not be allowed as it discriminated against young inexperienced workers.

He stressed that inspections needed to be carried out regularly to deter abuse of workers` rights.

How would employees report victimisation? Would they have to face their employer directly or would they just have to report it to the competent authority? He remarked that this had to be discussed thoroughly.

He suggested that the right of workers to join a trade union should be included in the bill.

The debate continues this morning.